I wanted you to know that on Easter (April 2011) this past year I was confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church. That significant decision began three years ago and involved two rounds of RCIA (the adult catechism course), wise counsel, and much prayer.

I want to emphasize that my decision is a personal one. Desert Stream Ministries has not become Catholic; it remains ecumenical and will continue to serve a variety of churches, mostly evangelical, which seek to minister to broken ones.

Furthermore, the Living Waters program will not be altered in any way. Its foundations are intact, a gift to the whole church.

I decided to become Catholic for several reasons. The first is the leading of the Spirit. I surrendered my desire for the Church after a year, and yet my longing intensified.

The reasons for my longings are evident: I love the centrality of Christ Crucified, the Eucharistic celebration in its two-fold emphasis on breaking open the Word and Bread daily, a non-personality driven approach to church-life, the Church calendar, and the historic teachings of the Church in regards to moral theology.

‘The Catholic Church is the sole surviving coherent institutional voice of morality in a world under the tyranny of relativism,’ wrote one Pope, expressing well one reason for my standing with the Church in this hour.

What I love challenges me continuously. What the Church believes she struggles to live. And though I agree with most fundamental doctrines contained in the catechism, I am troubled by some, and continue to seek God and wise counsel about them. Also, parish life is not highly conducive to the ministry I have pioneered, and will require more patience and wisdom than I have.

Answers to a few commonly asked questions:

Confession to a priest? I see no conflict between confessing to a priest and the type of confession we do daily with one another in our ‘Living Waters’ world. A Catholic seeking sobriety in today’s idolatrous world needs both a good priest and good friends with whom to work out grace and truth-filled accountability.

A closed Eucharist? I value the Church’s high view of communion. I did not partake of the Eucharist until I was confirmed, respecting that only Catholics are allowed to partake of what is believed to be the Lord’s Body and Blood. However, I have no conflict with partaking of the Lord’s Supper with Protestants who hold a different view of the elements.

The idolatry of Mary? I have always valued Mary more than most evangelicals: ‘Blessed is she among women’ is biblical truth! I honor her because she points away from herself and toward Jesus continuously. The Catechism forbids the deification of her and thus of anything approaching worship. Because I value her humility above all else, I struggle with the attention the Church gives her, and certain doctrines that grant her attributes that I do not see reflected in Scripture. Though these are not ‘deal-breakers’ for me, they give me pause. Pray that I might distill what is precious from what isn’t.

Lay ministry in the Catholic Church? The Church highly values the ministry of lay persons. That is essential for me, for our mission at Desert Stream involves equipping the saints to walk with other saints into sexual and relational wholeness. For my volunteer service (each Desert Stream staff person must be involved in a church-based healing group), I am exploring an opportunity to serve the Church where I live. God help me and them!

Wholeness and holiness in a perverted Church? The Church has been rocked by sexual abuse scandals for a couple of decades now. It is a good and necessary thing. I believe that God is disciplining her, as Christian ‘love’ without discipline is not love at all. Strangely, my allegiance to the Pope came about in the last year amid all the scandals. I entrusted myself to him as the leader of my Church and vowed to prayerfully stand with him in this crucial hour of his leadership.

I await new partnerships with which to serve the Church in this hour of her discipline. She currently has few effective outlets for sexual restoration, beginning with her priests. It is too early to tell how I might help her. I shall begin by serving where I can in the local church or diocese.

A schism in Living Waters due to my conversion? A rumor began last summer that my Catholicism broke up our unity in Living Waters, especially in South America. That is false. Argentine Mauricio Montion chose to no longer serve under my leadership due to my change, and the Living Waters International Council assigned him another overseer. I am glad he is still committed to Living Waters and that he has fresh oversight.

Is Annette a Catholic? Annette began the process toward Roman Catholicism with me then stopped mid-way through. We work hard to sort out our differences here. I attend her Church on Sunday morning then go to early Communion most mornings. It is not easy but as mature Christians and married partners we are seeking to grow through this challenge.

(I would not recommend that spouses go to different churches! At this point, however, we are doing the best we can, respecting one another’s consciences.)

An evangelical Catholic? You betcha. My roots will always be evangelical. I believe in the life-transforming power of Jesus Christ, founded on the Scripture. I also believe in the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. That means I have more to learn than I ever will; I hope it also means that my reliance upon Jesus and each other as our Source for sexual wholeness will wake up sleepy Catholics.

Catholic elitism? I do not think of myself as having found the exclusive or best Church; I respect everyone’s right to discover Jesus where (s)he finds Him on the local Church level. The Desert Stream staff represents a variety of Churches; we work out daily what it means to find the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Combined, we compose one body.

Church Unity? The little conflicts that have arisen thus far over my Catholicism are an acute reminder to me of how divided the Christian Church is. While praying the other day, I saw a gulf of water between two groups of people. It was vast, water mixed with blood. Instinctually I knew that this was the Mercy stream from the Crucified; it also represented the Protestant/Catholic divide, still bloody, still too large to bridge.

Then I saw broken people coming to either side of the river and putting their weary, fractured limbs in the water. They were receiving healing and were unconcerned about the doctrinal differences on ‘the other side.’ They just wanted and needed Jesus and welcomed all who sought the same. Healing of sexual brokenness was helping to heal the greater divide between the two groups.

I pray that the mission of Desert Stream Ministries will do its part to heal our one divided Church.

‘There is one body, and one Spirit…one Lord, one faith, one baptism.’(Eph. 3:4, 5)

—

UPDATE January 23rd 2012 at 2:00 PM CST:

Dear friends,

Thank you all for your concerned, thoughtful response to my Catholicism. It honors me that you would take the time to respond. I am reminded of the many years we have stood together for holiness and wholeness in Christ’s body. Our commitment endures, even as the particular arm of Christ’s body in which we stand may have changed! Again, bless you for your friendship, advocacy, and respect, even if you disagree with aspects of Roman Catholicism. We all love Jesus, and are seeking to prepare a people for Himself. Even so Lord, come!

Gosh, Andy. This is very significant and I commend for the diligence, courage and transparency exhibited in this process. My parents had a period of going to different churches for a time, but it worked itself out. God will keep you and Annette, too.

Praying for you on this journey. My first reaction was divided, but I appreciate, respect, and understand a large part of your reasoning. Blessings and rich anointing and power of His grace, provision and protection -- as well as favor! Also prayers for you and Annette during this time especially.

Andy, I applaud your decision for this conversion. Having grown up Presbyterian but in the last 6 years attending evangelical churches, I have recently been sitting in on Masses. I love the holiness and awe that I feel in the Catholic Church and I have worked within Catholic social service structures for a good part of my career. I understand the longing you mentioned and have considered Roman Catholicism for myself as well. Blessings to you and your family and I wish you much peace and love in your journey with this new step.

In SACRED PATHWAYS by Gary Thomas, he puts together 7 forms of worship which may suit one's personality and preference. We have learned to respect these forms and can see Jesus appreciate each one as part of the whole. Our GOD is the God of variety, creating things each according to its various kind. Since no religious institution has everything down pat perfectly, we have to get the best practices from each one and seek the Holy Spirit's guidance in "putting it together". Genesis 1 has helped our church in becoming more harmonizing on this, while remaining faithful to the the nature and character of our Father, our Savior and our Counselor.

Very enlightening, greatly impacted by your intentionality and the comments about the centrality of the cross and the devotion to the person of Mary( void of innapropriate worship).I pray that your obedience leads to wonderful healing and wholeness for many in your new sphere of influence and as a precious couple you both continue to be refreshed and renewed.

Hi, Andy. Welcome to the Catholic Church. I met you at the "Theology of the Body" course in PA a few years ago. I was received into the Church at Easter 2006. During this Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, my prayer is that all Christians trust Jesus to lead them on the journey toward healing.

Andy,
Thank you for this courageous letter to all your brothers and sisters in the Desert Stream Ministry.
I've been receiving your newsletters for years now and I always sensed your open spirit to Catholicism. I am a Roman Catholic and I have found much healing through evangelical prayer ministries, including Pastoral Care Ministries, MPC's, and here in my home town, Freedom House Canada.
I have always believed we Catholics need the healing Spirit of Desert Stream and the others I listed. In my own work (Navigating the Masculine Journey www.masculinejourney.ca), I try to bring (it's early yet in its development) some of the things I've learned through my evangelical friends. Glad to have you on the team, so to speak. The largest Christian Church in the world needs your help!
May God continue to bless your ministry.
Patrick

I am frankly shocked and dismayed, Andy, upon hearing of your conversion for the first time. You are a singular figure for me, not because of Deserts Streams, for I have not needed that particular ministry. Rather, because of a conference you held on healing between men and women that I attended at the Anaheim Vineyard. At that conference, I came up to you at the end of a break to ask about Bonhoeffer, whom you had mentioned. Even as I asked the question, you looked at me with the eyes of Jesus, his light and love on your face. I have never experienced that with anyone else though I am constantly around strong believers. Now you belong to a church that tells all non-Catholics, whether Wiccans, satan worshippers, or Protestants, that they are going to HELL. I know because I grew up Catholic and left the church while at a Jesuit university. How can you look at evangelicals or any other Protestant who loves and serves Jesus that this is the Church with a capital C and that you respect her moral authority? And isn't that the linchpin of the great divide between Catholic and Protestant--their pronouncement that we are unsaved! I am stunned and near tears.

Hi sweetheart,
I wanted to clarify something with you that you may have not heard. Pope John Paul 11 (second)...States that those who are not Catholic, yet believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are living in HIS salvational grace. So the Catholic Church does not say we protestants are unsaved and going to hell anymore. That stopped along time ago. The new Catechism (sp?) even states that. Be at peace darling....God is calling many evangelicals into the Catholic Church at this time, because God has a plan, to awaken the Catholic Church and HE needs those mature ones to be there to minister to the hearts that open up and need someone to talk to. I trust God in Andy, and that same look you saw in Andies eyes is still there and many are going to look into Andy's eyes and meet Jesus for the first time. This is ALL about Gods love for His people. The nice thing about becoming Catholic is that not everyone in the Catholic Church actually believes all the doctrines. But they love that Christs Passion is center, as it should be in all Christian congregations :)

Mary, do not be dismayed, for what you find so abhorrent is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
"'Many elements of sanctification and of truth' are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: 'the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.' Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities *as means of salvation*, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 819, emphasis added, footnotes removed). See also paragraph 846 for an explanation that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
Andy, welcome home, and God bless you! I would challenge you to reconsider, though, the potential for confusion by your partaking of communion in Protestant worship. As you grow in your love for our Eucharistic Lord, I hope and pray that you will refrain. Our beloved separated brethren need to see what they are missing.

Hi, The Sheepcat,
just let me to have one comment on “Our beloved separated brethren need to see what they are missing”. Just to let you know that this pride of splitting Church into the Christians of the A class (who are allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper in your church) and the Christians of the B class (who are not) is probably the biggest reason why I won't join a Catholic congregation ever (or at least until the Catholic Church publicly apologizes from this, for which I pray). I know that you have a plenty of nice and spiritual explanations why it is not so (don't worry, I know about them, I have my Catholic friends), but just let you know that this splitting of the Christ's body into two is not exactly something I would be missing to partake in.
Concerning Andy, God bless you my brother! God's ways are higher than ours.

I attended Mass on Sunday (Catholic) and Bishop Ronald Fabbro spoke about the wonderful spirit of ecumenism that has settled in the Church of Christ (universal) over the years. He said that it is no longer believed that only Catholics go to heaven and he spoke of the unity of faith that is shared among all Christians, be they Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Evangelical.

Andy: Thanks for sharing your journey. I hope to read more details in a future book! ! ! I became interested in this subject a few years ago when I began reading the stories of other converts. Also, I did some fascinating reading while in grad school at the Robert Webber Institute of Worship Studies in Jacksonville, FL. As you probably know, Dr. Webber wrote extensively on worship before his death, including stories of evangelicals who switched to more liturgical churches, such as Church of England/Episcopal ("Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail" is fascinating reading). I have been on staff at a mainline Presbyterian Church since leaving Exodus 10 years ago--it has given me a different and interesting perspective on the evangelical/charismatic side of Christianity. Blessings on your continued journey--I look forward to reading more details in coming months/years! --Bob Davies

Thank you for the details of your decision Andy. May you be led by Jesus himself in this new but ancient path. Be patient with all who will struggle with your decision, and remember the admonishment of Thomas Haemerken, known to most as Thomas a' Kempis, "The diversities of judgments and opinions, cause often-times dissensions between friends and countrymen, between religious and devout persons."

I am always amazed how the Holy Spirit is doing things in others..I too have been leaning towards Catholicism... choosing to attend daily chapel/Mass near my home @ Holy Family Catholic Church. I am renewed, refreshed and encouraged. I choose to walk with my husband in the same fellowship we have been apart for eight years, and still have freedom to worship in the Catholic community as the Spirit leads, too. Something has long been stirring in my heart for such a community. I understand. May the Lord continue to bless you Andy, Annette and family as He leads and guides you. He is faithful.

Andy, blessings to you as you pursue the direction our gracious Lord is offering. I have always found Catholic authors to be the key resources for developing my devotional life. Half of my library is either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox spiritual fathers. Protestants have produced too little like resources. I believe this is partly due to a lack of monastic communities. We as Protestants seem to ever morph with the culture and call it relevance. In seeking such cultural conformity, we have become irrelevant or another source of poor entertainment. Of course, this is a general observation drawn from my own personal bias.
Concerning the papal quote: "‘The Catholic Church is the sole surviving coherent institutional voice of morality in a world under the tyranny of relativism,’ wrote one Pope, expressing well one reason for my standing with the Church in this hour." I wonder if he is including the Eastern Orthodox - Catholic - but often not often recognized. I would concur that the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church are the sole surviving coherent institutional voice of morality ..." If only I could say the same for my tribe, the Anglican Communion.
I can't wait to see the new expansion of your ministry up ahead as you've entered more deeply into our ancient faith.

Andy I celebrate with you in your conversion to Catholicism. The deep sense of Mystery and Awe surrounding the church has never changed. In a moment of triumph many have found joy, peace and contentment in the faith of our Forefathers. God grants us change, renewal and committment and we never know where He might take us.
May the Eternal Hope of Glory be our saving grace as we face difficult challenges today.

Mary,
As a Catholic, I can tell you that we do not condemn anyone to hell. This is Gods job alone. Who are we to judge? We believe in one church which is the Roman Catholic Church, but God is bigger than this. I for one, believe non-catholics go to heaven and I'm sad to hear that many still have the belief that Catholics believe non-catholics go to Hell.
Andy - Thanks for your words. I am encouraged and very shocked by what you said. I would have thought the Pope to become Protestant before you converted to Catholicism - however, joyful to welcome you too. I joined the church in 2000 after being saved! :)

Hi Andy,
I am glad that you have gone where God has led you. I am on a similar ourney into the Eastern Orthodox Church. And my wife is not on board yet either. WE pray and I wait on God to do what He will do. I am desperate for the Eucharist. Your story and journey gives me encouragement and hope. God bless.

Andy,
I appreciate and relate to your journey—I've been on one of my own (you might recall that we were at the Vineyard together at one time). For me, one of the biggest issues has been the Eucharist, as I see you have articulated as well. I wrote a book about my Eucharistic journey: https://wipfandstock.com/store/Shadow_Meal_Reflections_on_Eucharist
It took a whole book for me to just get the reflective process going, and I'm still on the journey. Glad to see that you've landed.

Hi Mike, good to see your support of Andy. I am praying about going through RCIA this year. I would like to receive communion with Judy, my wife, who became a confirmed Catholic a few years ago. Joe Johnson

Hi Andy,
I wanted to thank you for the candid revelation of your conversion to Catholicism.
Having been raised in the Catholic Church, many of the wounds I carried in my youth I attributed to my experiences in the school I attended, as well as my home parish. Embracing the rebellion of the 60’s and 70’s lead me to abandon all participation in organized religion. Yet, the seeds sown in my youth lead to a radical conversion experience during the Jesus People movement. Though it would take many years to address my angst, I soon came to love and appreciate the solid foundation I had been raised with. And in time, forgive those who I felt had harmed me, separating the acts of fallen mankind from the Church.
I fear you will come across others who still carry those hurts and view your conversion as a betrayal. But I want to encourage you to stand firm in your convictions. I still have serious issues with some Catholic doctrinal positions, but respect your willingness to follow Christ where He leads, no matter the response of those who may disagree. May you walk in a new found peace in your communion with Jesus.
In His mercy,
Phil Hobizal

Andy: You have been a wonderful mentor to me for many years and that will certainly continue. When I do personal spiritual retreats, I find the structure of Catholic devotion to be very nourishing. I also like what you said: a non-personality driven church. That says a whole lot that is absolutely a true concern within evangelicalism today. Further, the theological shifts on moral issues are expanding within evangelicalism. A very real concern. All that is not to castigate my own faith, but more to say - I wholly trust that you have been led by the Holy Spirit on this decision and that He will continue to work it to completion. God bless you and your family! In Christ's Love, Bill Henson, Founder and President, Lead Them Home

Hello Andy
Welcome Home !!!
We met at the Theology of the Body Institute Retreat at Quarryville, PA in 2010 (Dr Michael Waldstein'c course) and I remembered asking you why you were not a Catholic and why you were still abstaining from consummating your relationship with the Lord. (TOB's nuptial theology). I have ptayed for you since then.
In Jesus & Mary

Hi Andy,
Thanks for this article. I saw you speak in Baltimore this fall and loved your love for the church. This Sunday I too will be received into the Catholic Church after six and a half years of explorations and three times through RCIA. It is a big choice, but I am thrilled to enter into this unity at last. Please continue in your prayers for and service to the church.
Blessings,
Noah Tyler

Hi Andy,
My Grandmother was a devout Catholic. She had been very influential in my faith today as an Evangelical.
Evangelical Catholic? You betch! :) Good one....
There are teachings I cannot reconcile with like for instance the authority of the church, I respect the church, I respect the churches teachings especially in the moral areas so many other churches are falling away from. I cannot reconcile with the teachings of Marry within the Catholic church but I have always held a high respect for Marry... it's also good to hear another person besides me to tell people the Catholic church does not worship Marry but even with differences that I cannot reconcile with I have always believed there is something Evangelicals can learn from our brothers and sisters who are Catholic, I have seen this every time I've been to Mass and every time I interact with other Evangelicals. I have also come to believe that there is also much that our Catholic brothers and sisters can learn from those of us who are Evangelical.
We are all on a journey with Jesus and as long as Jesus continues to be front and center and as long as our core beliefs continue to be of God as Trinity, Father, Son, and Spirit, and continue to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, and we continue to pursue holiness in our faith journey I believe it is that right there that should unify us all in faith and our differences shouldn't be what divides us.
I will continue to lift up you and your wife in prayer at this time and season in your life.

My dear Brother!
Andy, I've come to know you as a brother, "long distance" friend, and as a man of God. I've also come to know you haven't made any major decision without first praying and asking Our Heavenly Father for His heart and will for you. Though I myself left the RCC years ago, and may not return due to certain doctrinal positions and official teachings (which you cited), I know God will use you to help bring healing to many of our brothers and sisters in Christ in the RCC who are hurting and struggling in sexual brokenness! I love you, and stand with you on your journey!
In His love and service,
Ralph Puccini

I am an new comer to this website. I was raised Catholic. I struggled with Homosexuality until I gave up my Life to Jesus. When that happened I still attended the Catholic Church but something didn't feel right inside. The Catholic Church felt empty. I felt like i didn't belong anymore. The Catholic Sexual Orientation program that I was in was led by a Nun who never experienced Sex. It was a joke.
Maybe since the Catholic Church seems to be so inadequate in this area God is calling you to Guide it.
And maybe you can get them to only concentrate on God and Jesus. You could be Billy Graham for them.
At first I was really depressed about this but we don't think like God. And if the Spirit is leading you then it is what God wants of you.
I have other things to share with you that I don't want to say in this email. Maybe I could be an insight for you. I agree that the Catholic Church has been stead fast in holding to the teachings of the Bible and if the church that I am at stumbles to allow Gay Marriage I will come back myself. That is a Big Might.
I hope that you can bring the healing light that you have for so many people of Jesus to the Catholics as well.

God bless you, Andy!! You can count on me, my prayers and my support no matter what. You are the greatest man I've met in the last few years and I truly admire you as a deeply godly man as well as all the work you have done for so many people in the world. I love you in Christ, Andy. I'm sure many good things will happen in your life and in Desert Stream. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR GREAT JOB!! A BIG HUG TO YOU!!

I am currently attending RCIA classes myself. My decision to convert is based on many of the criteria you listed. I am starting to believe this is the true church established by Christ.
I'd like to make a comment concerning scandal and the Catholic church. There is data Showing the level of abuse in Protestent churches and public school system is signifigantly higher than the Catholic church. The media gives much more attention when the scandal involves the Catholic church, just like directors focus on the ornate symbolism associated with the church when making movies. In one recent year there were over 300 cases of abuse in the New York City school system. I dont recall those news stories. The devil does well to attack the church with over 1 billion members.

The bottom-line for me is how. a person, group, church, community and even a nation live their lives like christ.
Catholic persons, groups, churches , communities 'and even nations live so far from what the bible and their teaches .
I don't have to go away, the Philippines has cultures of corruption, immorality and violence.and almost all filipinos are catholics.
Let us go to Europe: their economic problems are caused by the PIGS. Except for Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain are all Catholics
These consistently tell me, among million things, there is something very wrong with the catholic church.
I have met iAndrew in Manila. Although the founded the ministries, out of his good catholic heart, he just leaves the ministries as they are, ie Christian.
I challenge that he begins (again) new similar ministries in the Catholic Church the member of which lack knowledge and wisdom.
Sad.!

Dear Andy ,since we’ve never met , I feel reluctant to post my views on your move to the Catholic tradition. However since you have afforded the opportunity to do so I would like to share the following. 1. When someone says they make a decision after much prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit, it is difficult for most of us to want to raise objections for fear of being accused of not respecting the person or grieving the Holy Spirit by disagreeing with their decision. I disagree with your decision but respect you as fellow believer and I am glad that the lady called Mary had the courage to write her concerns on Jan 19th. 2. Your comment “I have always valued Mary more than most evangelicals “comes across as a somewhat arrogant statement in my view. Many Protestants and preachers hold the same view as you do and I have heard that truth preached in my native Belfast, Northern Ireland in a Brethren denomination. Protestants rightly say that she was highly favoured by God but the emphasis has always been when I’ve heard about Mary in this context, is John Chpt 2 verse 5, the emphasis on the word HE. 3. My main concern however is the fact that your wife and yourself now worship in two different settings. Whether it’s the Catholic Church, Baptist or indeed any other Church denomination you care to mention, is in this context is not the issue. You stand at the head of an organization that promotes Christian marriage and wholeness, not just sexually but in every aspect of that Godly relationship. Desert Stream, and the Living water courses (of which my wife & I have been a part of here in Bergen, Norway in Scandinavia) put much stock in symbolism and the presence of a physical cross at the courses to help participants. Symbolism in my view is the heart of the matter here. I believe many folks will struggle with the contradiction your decision presents to Desert Stream. On the one hand, unity in a Christian marriage is central not just for a couple’s relationship but also for their witness to unbelievers, but on the other hand people are being asked to accept your decision that you and your wife will worship in different locations. The’ trumpet’ in my view is not sounding a clear call here. You have mentioned the you both have struggled long and hard over this but it is still a contradiction in my view. When we marry we give up being single and share our lives with another person. Ephesians 5 verses 22 to 33 goes to the heart of the issue. A wife is to submit to her husband but a husband should be willing to lay down his life for his wife, which Paul states here in no uncertain terms shows the relationship between Christ and his Church. You explain in some detail about this being a personal decision and it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that you feel you had to do this and Annette will just have to accept it. I have difficulty believing the consequences of this decision won’t continue to cause confusion and pain in the Desert Stream organization. Just as serious however is that this may cause challenges down the road in your marriage and as you know all too well this is something the enemy will endeavour to exploit. I hope and pray that with all the amazing things God has done through you, Annette and Desert Stream, that this decision will not be one you regret for the reasons I’ve tried to explain here.
Gary Robert Reynolds
Bergen, Norway

I am glad that someone mentioned this. This is my only concern as well. There needs to be unity in marriage, and this leaves you and Annette vulnerable. I will pray for unity as you both walk out this journey!

One might reflect on what the words "full of grace" mean. The scripture only descibes two people with that atribute. Jesus and Mary.
I believe very strongly in the Immaculate conception. At Lourdes, Mary declared "I am the Immaculate Conception" There is so much grace and mercy that flows into the church to us throuigh Mary. After all, she is the mother of Jesus!
The RC church has always made a distinction between worship and verenation. That is why there are three degrees to sainthood: blessed, vererable and saint...Protestants don't seem to make this disticntion, there are no degrees, just black and white. Catholic theology has many more shades and degrees.
As far as "it's not in scripture", the bible was given to the church to break open and give to the world. We need this guidence... And obviously, sola scriptura has been an failure and has fractured the church. That's why we need a teaching authority.
Blessings to all on this forum!

I already posted in this blog yesterday but I chose to do it again after reading a posting that really annoyed me. I really don't know why some "Christians" think that being Catholic is a synonym of sin --I am a Christian Catholic, by the way. We do not believe that we are more perfect or less perfect than anyone else. We have faults and qualities as any other human being.
The Bible says: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matthew 7:1-5).
For those who think that being a Christian Catholic is a synonym of sin, I have a question for you: Why is the world a mess today? Because people do not have tolerance towards others. We as Christians are supposed to make a difference in this world to make it a better place. Otherwise, what are we doing then? We as Christians and as the Body of Christ should not focus on our differences, we should focus on what we have in common instead: the Love for Jesus Christ in order to make a better world.
I relate to Andy's quote at the end of his posting:
‘There is one body, and one Spirit…one Lord, one faith, one baptism.’(Eph. 3:4, 5)
GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!
Arturo Sáez
(Nicaragua)

Hey Arturo,
I agree with you, I really do. One of the thing that causes the greatest amount of division between Evangelicals and Catholic's is because of the ignorance that exists... just as many Evangelicals are straying from truth we can assume that Catholics in ways may stray from the truth so both sides are guilty of their own idolatry, their own brokennes, their own misunderstanding of scripture at times, we're all still learning and growing and being challenged in our faith. There are differences that we don't need to let us be divided over but there may be times when division is necessary... the church has to be ok with the messy and dirty, the challenges and difficulty, and also within that the allowance for people to pursue their relationship with Jesus which may in fact look different from person to person... whether Charismatic/Vineyard, Evangelical, or Catholic we're all on a journey with Jesus.
I agree with you... there is one body, and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism... yet if you're not baptized Catholic then you're excluded from communion.... I respect this but it also divides the body of Christ and goes against one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, one baptism... and for many Catholics who believe that the Roman Catholic church is the only true church it further excludes Evangelicals but for the many Evangelicals who believe symbolism is a form of idolatry they neglect to realize that symbolism is threaded throughout the whole of the scriptures and very much so apart of Hebrew culture.
I am praying for a continued work of the Holy Spirit to bridge the gap, to bring healing and understanding, and for the body of Christ to truly love. The scripture says that they "the world" or "those outside the church" will know we are Christians by our love. I have seen a relative few who converted to Catholicism and because they felt as though their faith and relationship with Jesus had been quite shallow they assume that is the case for all Evangelicals as that troubles me but I admire those who convert to Catholicism and live as an example of unity within the context of diversity.
Is it fare to expect that a married couple must express their worship to Jesus in the exact same way?
Is it fare to expect that each spouse must have the same exact views and never differ in opinion?
Differences and conflict has the potential to divide yes, but there is also the potential for greater intimacy. It really all depends on how one will choose to respond.

Sarah, I appreciate your thoughtful reply here. Particularly the last part. Yes, it would be a great example of unity for spouses to be in agreement about where to go to church and to have exactly the same views, but the point is, this just isn't always reality. Even in the same church, married people each approach God in their own way, differing needs and approaches at differing times. If indeed there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism - that is no less true even if Andy and Annette go to different churches.
I also appreciate the comment you make that just because one person experiences "shallowness" in their original spiritual context (in your example Evangelicalism) that everyone else does too. I think this feeling has been true for people on both sides of the divide - Catholics are bored with their dead, repetitive liturgy and hunger for something more personal, more relational. Evangelicals are bored with their overly systematic, americanized, personality driven, 45 minute three point sermons and hunger for the symbolism and mystery of the Eucharistic celebration, which carries with it continuity with the ancient church all the way back to the Apostles. Either way, there are those who long for something more.
I cannot buy into Catholicism, hook line and sinker although I respect her place in the landscape of God's people. I have problems with the exaltation of the Roman church over the Orthodox church over who is the "Real Church" - in honesty, they both are, they are like divorced parents and no wonder the rest of us feel like dysfunctional children. Our churches are the splintered children of the divided Bride! Well, enough about the soap box. I do think that Anglican and Episcopal expressions of the church offer much of the same historical, mystical, and celebratory value, without the baggage of the more radical Roman doctrines. The real problem I have with the Roman church is her insistence that she is the true church. I.E. that we are all in error, but oh well, God makes room for us anyway. But you know what? That's any church around the world, really - that believes in anything worth believing in. We ALL need to get over that. Once again. God bless Andy. It will be interesting to see what happens next!!

Sarah,thanks for your very intimate submission.
Yes we christians should bridge our differences.
With the matter of the eucharist,the Catholic church doesn't exerpt anyone not to partake in it,but we really want you to believe that you're not just eating with Christ,but eating HIS body that HE allowed to be crucified on the cross.
We don't want to cannibals(laugh),that is why we allow people to understand it in order to partake it with us.
So please we will like to share our CHRIST BODY with you,but we want you to believe what you're doing.
All we want is unity in CHRIST'S CHURCH.
One thing I also want you to know is that differences will exist forever.Even you can see that the time JESUS said until you eat my BODY and drink my BLOOD,many people left HIM.During his time of preaching too,there were many ideological differences and understandings.Even HIS disciples didn't understand HIM well until HIS death and resurrection,and later during pentecost.
The HOLY SPIRIT is still working,so all that we need and am happy about is our talking to each other.And I know GOD and JESUS together with the HOLY SPIRIT will make us unified.
GOD BLESS YOU.

Dear Andy, its a shock and a very sad news for me in 2012 because of your change. Its so weird to know that you have crossed the redline and its saddens some of our hearts. Around the world the Lord Jesus is pulling out people from different people groups of all kinds from the Catholic Church to His real saving power by His death and resurrection which is preached and displayed in power by the Full Gospel/Pentecostal/Protestant churches, Evagelists, Preachers and missions. Here is a person who is going back!!! The church that I attend has approximately 30-40% Catholic converts, who have left Catholicism. Jesus is bringing people from the Catholic Church to a church which worships the Father in Spirit and Truth. Mary is either worshipped or honoured too much in the Catholic Church which is utterly non-biblical and against the Bible. Idoatltry(Idols) is found in every Catholic church. Praying through Saints is against the Word of God. Mary did not die for anyone, Only Jesus died and He shed His precious blood. Mary need not be honoured to the degree as Catholics do cause the Bible never in one place encourages the believer to do. Jesus himself said" those who hear my words and do it are my mother, brothers and sisters" and not an earthly mother Mary nor His brothers, who never even respected or valued the Real Son of God in His home when He was doing His ministry. Jesus loves His earthly mother Mary still as He loves me and you but she is not the Mother of the Son of God for ever. That is heresy from the Catholic church which considers her to be the mother of Jesus for all eternity. Only during His earthly life she was and now she may enjoy that respect but not being equal to God the Father, not equal to God the Son and not equal to God the Holy Spirit. She is not the Queen of Heaven as some Catholic believe. I read a testimony from Mary Baxter, she saw in her out of body experience and going with Jesus and visiting Heaven and Hell. Baxter saw Mary was crying and sad in a room in Heaven and she heard her saying "why are this earthly people worshipping me and honouring me, its only Jesus they should honour and worship and not me?" Kindly check again and ask the Holy Spirit and read the Word of God(Ten Commandments and New Testament) with the help of the Holy Spirit. I am just 40 now and you are more mature and elder to me and have incredible knowledge in the Word of God and you have great experience too, I am not even worthy to write to you but I felt strongly to do this. No hard feelings only a deep and true concern for you!!! Bless you, John Samuel

Hi Andy,
We met in Kansas City, about 3 years ago. Thanks for being so open and vunrable.
I have taken the same choice, for the same reasons, after nearly 50 years in ministry as an evangelical missionary and counselor. After many years of longing, I could unexpetedly take that step, after my wife said: 'Téo, go to a monastery and dedicate your life to prayer'. That is what I have done. Through my many years of contact with bishop Klaus Küng of St. Pölten in Austria, I got also his support to go the a priest seminary (www.leopoldinum.at). In due time I hope to be ordained (inspite of the fact that I am nearly 75). I agree that there is much wrong, but also a great amount of good to find in the RC Church. Now I get also some intellectual food about the Church from the 'inside' and I can tell you, it gives me joy. I bless your journey together with your wife.
Téo J. van der Weele (tjvdweele@gmail.com)

hi, i don´t speak english very well, but i really like your testimony, your sincerity and honesty. I am Catholic, and i can help you to answer your questions, but look for a space where to work in you ministery too. your ministeries are very needed in our church, but there are some catholic people tha haven´t discovered all the treasure of healing throug Chirst. So if have troubles findin answer, people o spaces to ministry, please contact me, we´ll find a way together. my comunity will pray for you a your wife.

Dear friends,
Thank you all for your concerned, thoughtful response to my Catholicism. It honors me that you would take the time to respond. I am reminded of the many years we have stood together for holiness and wholeness in Christ's body. Our commitment endures, even as the particular arm of Christ's body in which we stand may have changed! Again, bless you for your friendship, advocacy, and respect, even if you disagree with aspects of Roman Catholicism. We all love Jesus, and are seeking to prepare a people for Himself. Even so Lord, come!

I think Andy's decision here and courage to announce it WITH his own reservations - reveals the transparent, honest, spirit-led Andy Comiskey we know and love. And I think it underscores the reality that there are many Christians seeking the spirit from both sides of the "RED LINE" - It is not heresy that Andy has submitted himself to, but God's heart amidst many iterations of his broken bride that are ALL riddled with heresy. From the evangelical to the charismatic, to the non-denoms, and also yes, the Sacramentals. I consider myself to be all 4, imagine that! God's heart is in every quadrant, wooing us, and although I wonder what Andy's decision will mean for the broader church and his marriage - these concerns would remain, even if Andy never converted - for as long as there is blood in our veins, we will always struggle to see through a glass dimly. How to love God above any other, and love our neighbors as ourselves will never be an effortless prospect - no matter how anointed! And as for worshipping Mary...to paraphrase Rich Mullins another convert to Catholicism before his untimely death - "Maybe it's not that we revere Mary too much, we just revere each other too little." God can handle Andy's decision (ai-ya-yai, I hope I can!!!). Much love to Andy, Annette, Dean, and Desert Stream Team!!

I guess my biggest concern would be the time spent on indoctrination on the Catholic "religion" and lack of encouragement by the Catholic Church to read the Bible while losing sight of the true gospel.

If I read one more post from someone who's "going through the same journey," I don't know what I'll do. That's kind of easy, isn't it? If Andy had announced he was returning to a life of homosexuality, I'm sure there would have been many posts from those "going through the same journey..." Such comments have no value and carry no weight. This decision and the apparent marital conflict it has caused must be weighed in the light of the Word. I find this a very troubling development and hope that Andy has not laid aside the idol of sexual sin to take up the idol of roman catholic worship.

Dan, I believe you are blinded by your own self-righteousness. Read your bible. Read the rituals and the garments the Lord commanded to be observed in the old Testament. Read the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel. And then there's the New Testament. Read the account of the Last Supper. Read the book of Revelation. The Sacramental Church (while potentially vulnerable to certain heretical predispositions) meets a longing birthed in us by the Creator for ritual, mystery, peagantry, and celebration. Weighed in the Light of the Word makes a difference, but a divinely birthed longing nonetheless. The comments of others going through the SAME or SIMILAR journeys carry a lot of weight. You just refuse to acknowledge their value. But you my friend are not God. He values and meets the hunger he has placed inside all of us. He meets us at his table, and feeds us richly with his Word, his Sacraments, and his Spiritual Gifts. Receive them all and repent of the idolatry of your own religious idealism. If you've ever been impacted by the ministry of Desert Stream or Living Waters, you should know that the journey/story of another is a BIG DEAL. I am eager to hear what Andy has to say, and honored by his transparency. In his own way, he has just publicly and prophetically called the Catholic Church to account for its doctrines. I am also eager to see and to hear how the Catholic Church responds to his boldness. Now that he is an ally and not an accusing enemy.

We attended the Theology of the Body Immersion course together back in '09 (I was accompanied by my teenage son). I appreciate so much your ministry and pray often for those afflicted by same-sex attraction...especially in light of what we know God intended for our sexuality. I want to also welcome you home to the fullness of the faith. I have many Protestant friends - some even closer than most of my Catholic friends - but I always feel a special kinship when we share not only our faith in Christ but our sacramental life as well. I yearn for the day when we can all celebrate at the same wedding feast...even though I realize that is most likely to come at the heavenly banquet.

Hi Andy! Thank you for sharing your testimony of your ongoing journey home to the Catholic church. We met at Tagaytay, Philippines during the Living Waters Leadership Training the year you commissioned Benjie Cruz as head of Desert Stream Ministries in Philippines. I rejoiced upon hearing the good news! I pray that you will continue to minister effectively to the sexually and relationally broken among our Catholic, protestant and evangelical Christian brothers and sisters; and yes, also pave the way for healing of sexually broken priests and the unfortunate victims of their impure acts. I pray the Holy Spirit will continue guide you and Annette, as well as your children in your respective faith journeys. God bless and love you always, Andy.

Having been raised Catholic and then actually having a 'Born Again' experience at the age of 27, I had a lot of explaining to do to an Irish Catholic mother.
I was also an Art major in college, which, when studying Art History, you are also lead through the history of the Catholic Church and their error; Councils of Trent, homosexual Popes, multiple Popes in place at the same time recognized in different countries, Popes with harems of concubines, Purgatory?, wealthy people buying 'indulgences' (reducing their stay in Purgatory and entry into heaven), the Sacrament of baptizing of babies (not found anywhere in the Bible), and etc, etc.
One big problem with the Catholic Church: Their belief that at the daily 'Sacrifice of the Mass' you are literally partaking of the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ at communion. Catholic doctrine states that they are creating Christ's death and sacrifice over and over. Jesus performed one FINAL sacrifice for all who would accept it (as written in Hebrews and through out the New Testament). Catholic doctrine states that when their Priest elevates the host (communion wafer), it literally becomes 'the body and blood of Christ'. Many Catholics are not even aware of this belief that they are not just doing this 'in remembrance of Me', as Christ said at the Last Supper, but are literally eating His body and blood .
Because of this, and other gross error through the years as the church compromised under Roman rule (thus the title Roman Catholic Church), as a new Christian, I had to have a Martin Luther experience and seek a direct path via the Bible.
Having said all of this, I am NOT anti-Catholic. Many modern Catholics they have returned to a direct and personal study of the Bible and personal salvation offered freely through Christ's perfect sacrifice.
I will also say that I am personally having a problem with corporate 'Churchianity' in America. The pure relationship with Jesus through the Charismatic Movement that attracted and drew people out of all denominational churches, some thirty years ago, has become another 'denomination' of its own. Many current day independent churches have become the compromised, lifeless, churches that they were protesting against at their birth. They have become polluted by ego, nepotism, money, power, compromise, and selfish interests.
It is, as it always has been, difficult to find the purity of Christ through 'religion'. I believe that God sees our hearts and has a lot of mercy for the human error found in all churches for those who are really trying to know Him. At the same time, I have no doubt that He has much disdain for those who are trying to use and manipulate people for selfish interests in his Holy Name.

"LIKE" button. While I am pro-Eucharist and not really Anti-Catholic, I get your post and appreciate especially the last couple paragraphs about Churchianity and Religion. Jesus is more than Religion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

Dear Michael: I wish to kindly state that I believe you misunderstand the Catholic position on the Mass. The church does quite obviously believe that there is one sacrifice, once for all. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is simply that same sacrifice, so powerful, that we experience it today, the same as the church has in the past and will in the future. as the CCC says:
"In the liturgy of the Church, it is principally his own Paschal mystery that Christ signifies and makes present. During his earthly life Jesus announced his Paschal mystery by his teaching and anticipated it by his actions. When his Hour comes, he lives out the unique event of history which does not pass away: Jesus dies, is buried, rises from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father "once for all."8 His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past. The Paschal mystery of Christ, by contrast, cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is—all that he did and suffered for all men—participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all. The event of the Cross and Resurrection abides and draws everything toward life."
As far a the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, all you have to do is read John 6 with an open mind and you will see why the church belives this.
if you are really interested, most of the objection you mention about the Catholic church have been dealt with for a long time. There are two books I would greatly recommend: "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by karl Keating, and "Answer me this" By Patick Madrid. These books speak to the questions you raise.
Gregory
ghmus7@hotmail.com

Andy: I too was a Vineyard pastor in the '90s and for over six years was on the staff of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City. IHOP's director, Mike Bickle (an ex-Catholic), encouraged the staff to read Catholic mystics and doctors like -- St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis de Sales, St. Thérèse of Lisieux, and St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Augustine. As I read them, I was inspired by their lives, testimonies, theology and Church.
The inward drive to return to the Catholic Church was related to my continued search for Truth, the Early Church Fathers, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the power of the Eucharist, and my need and desire for it. Easter 2010, I reverted back to the Catholic Church after 19 years of being a Protestant missionary. I shared my testimony on EWTN's "The Journey Home" and The Coming Home Network International. I'll be praying for you; I know the price you paid to make this decision. Welcome home!
http://youtu.be/w4TK9qI4-4A
http://bit.ly/pjArmR

Andy,
I applaud you for following your convictions regarding conversion to Catholicism. My entire life and ministry was inside the evangelical church, and later as a pastor in an evangelical/charismatic church movement. Three years ago, with confidence that Jesus was leading, the transition into the Anglican Church in North America began. Many of the same reasons you have stated were discovered inside the Anglican Church. Yet, with all the reasons that could be given, for me, the principle reason I became an Anglican, apart from the leading of Jesus, is the historical richness of commitment to the word, the works, and the sacraments. When combined there is a beauty discovered in the daily expression of life-best described as the exchange and renewing of covenants between Christ and myself. So, I really do get the reason for the decision. The Lord be with you Andy!

I was supremely bummed when I read this. I always want to see people journey away from bondage and towards freedom. I went through Living Waters over 10 years ago and it was the 1st major step in my life to really having some core issues healed. So seeing this was staggering. I didn’t read “God is calling me to reach Catholics” or “I believe God wants me to work within that framework to do a special work”. I reread it 2 more times to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding. Unfortunately I wasn’t missing it. I read clearly that Andy is embracing the exact heresies we can’t.
I was set free from being a Mormon 26 years ago. Since then I have had many opportunities to reach those still trapped. Some of the best Christians I have ever met are Mormon (true of some Catholics I know as well). They love Jesus with all their heart and are committed to working within that framework to reach others. God is always starting mini-revivals in the Mormon church to set people free (true of Catholics as well). I believe there is a huge difference between being called by God to work within a particular framework to save others and choosing to embrace the smaller, darker box.
When God is always trying to get each one of us out of our box and walk in greater freedom, why would we willingly go back? It is not a matter of light vs. dark. It is an issue of which direction are you heading and is it towards something where things are darker or lighter. Although I have had many opportunities to help in pulling some Mormons out of the fire, I am not going back to the Mormon church unless commanded by God. If He ever does command me, I know it will be for the purpose of reaching others and not embracing the doctrines of men.
The parallels between the gross errors in Catholicism and Mormonism are many and frightening. If one is missing the mark in such a huge manner in terms of the authority of: the Word of God, leadership, the church and salvation, what more is there to miss?
For the Mormons, the Bible isn’t enough. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price (extra Mormon scripture) carry equal weight with the Bible.
For the Catholics, the Bible isn’t enough. Church traditions carry equal weight with the Bible.
For the Mormons, they are the only true church.
For the Catholics, they are the only true church.
For the Mormons, only their members are worthy to take communion.
For the Catholics, only their members are worthy to take communion.
For the Mormons, only their priesthood carries authority from God (even though the structure bears no resemblance to the New Testament).
For the Catholics, only their priesthood carries authority from God (even though the structure bears no resemblance to the New Testament).
For the Mormons, when their leader the prophet speaks, it is from God and equal to the Bible.
For the Catholics, when their leader the pope speaks, it is from God and equal to the Bible.
For the Mormons, salvation through Jesus wasn’t enough. Works are necessary or they can be stuck in a lower glory than heaven (Telestial or Terrestrial instead of Celestial).
For the Catholics, salvation through Jesus wasn’t enough. Works are necessary and/or others prayers re needed or they can be stuck in a lower glory than heaven (Purgatory).
Every sect and denomination has a less than stellar track record because they have been filled with hurting, broken people. They all have some form of error, whether it is doctrine and/or practice. All those errors are the traditions of men. The big problem is the Mormon and Catholic churches have a list of errors of the traditions of men that is many, many times longer than that of most other denominations.
Why go backwards? Why embrace more error instead of less? This seems scarily close to what Paul warned the Galatians about. He encouraged them to continue in freedom and not to head back towards the bondage involved in the traditions of men. Gal. 5:1 Jesus set us free so we could live and stay free. Do not turn back towards a yoke of slavery.
I am now past the frustration and discouragement of Andy’s "new" direction. I will pray.

Respectfully, the gross errors you attribute to the Catholic church may actually just be gross errors on your part in not persisting to seek the truth but rather accepting false and prejudiced views of the Catholic church from sources looking in from the outside that have no way of grasping the truth from within. May you be truly enlightened by the Holy Spirit through your earnest prayer.

Just being in a catherdral is such an amazing expericne of serenity and focus on his presence, sacredness and holiness, redemption through His cross! As a teenager, I got to spend time in afew European cathedrals during a totally evangelical missions trip. That impression of His holiness and valuing things that are holy as a 15 year old carried over to placing value on the sactity of marriage, vows even when my husband and I went through so many times of struggling through our marriage. Although I will remain a member of our evangelical church, I still do enjoy visiting catholic churches occasionally as a place to go and experience that deeper meditative focus on Jesus, the concepts of holiness, mercy and His restorative healing He brings to brought to us through His cross. So I can respect the decision to join the Catholic church, especially with the relational healing ministry that Andrew is called to which includes proclaiming the value and sanctity of our hetersexual marriages.

Dear Andy,
You have been and will continue to be a dear brother, trusted voice and fellow worker in Christ. I hope you will find some time to break bread the next time you are in Columbus. May God's blessing continue your labors to bring Christ's redemption to all.
For the sake of the Gospel,
John Lieb

Hi Andy,
I doubt that you would remember me from early SM Vineyard days. I am a long time friend of Jenny's and married to Jo (formerly Diamond) nearly 19 years ago. I applaud you and your tireless work, have been very tuned in, and exceedingly proud for your courage to let God grow Living Waters into such a dynamic, life-saving, life-changing ministry over the years.
I have read your posts and almost all the threads here. Over the years I have had several friends that have entrusted their worship and allegiances to the covering of the Catholic Church. These same folks have vibrant walks with the same Lord that we both know. That said, would you be willing to address two topics of importance here in this forum as they relate to scripture and how you submit, refuse, or embrace these aspects in your new walk?
The first is trans-substantiation; the bread is Jesus' actual body, the wine is his actual blood. In the upper room with his disciples, Jesus institutionalized this event---"Take, eat, this is my body...drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." And [Jesus speaking again]..."I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." First off, is Jesus suggesting that his disciples consume his live body at the dinner table? Second, Jesus says that He [himself] won't drink of this wine that takes away sin until he drinks it anew with you (where?) in my Father's kingdom. It would seem that this requires a great deal of spiritual gymnastics to attempt to make this fit. One could argue the second part to mean that when he ascended he co-mingled his body from heaven with all of his disciples who still remained (at that time) on earth. But, again, if so, why? Do we have any evidence that it was necessary for the disciples to take daily communion to clear the sin that might have accumulated from the day previous? That Peter administered daily communion in Jerusalem? What evidence do we have that Jesus wanted this done every day to remove new sin or to insure that the devil would not steal their fellowship? Don't get me wrong here. I think daily communion is a wonderful thing that would be of great benefit to all of us for purposes of refocus, reflection on what Jesus has done to insure our eternal standing. But, contrast this with Jesus leaving his Holy Spirit as a comforter until his return. Why do we need a comforter when everyday we can consume the host and wine and have Jesus living directly within us? Jesus did say to his disciples that they would not see him until he returned and that (now) he went to prepare a new place (mansion) in heaven for when they joined him.
And that really brings up the more important issue. I am not attempting to be contentious for the sake of my own gain. As you are able, I willfully and humbly ask you to bring clarification so that I might live in greater freedom and assurance of my salvation, if it is at risk, and also to have a deeper sense of sanctification. I make no bones that the following seems quite a serious breech from the central theme of Christianity, and so I especially want to know how you incorporate these Catholic Church positions into your walk.
That is, Jesus said of himself, that he came to take away the sin of the world once and for all; that he was and is the final and true sacrificial lamb. As God, paid the penalty with his life once, it applies to then, now, and forevermore. All sin is paid for when he says, "it is finished" from the cross. So then, every single day, 24/7 around the world (and I say this having spoken and listened to many Catholic members as well as a few highly regarded teachers within the Church), Jesus is ripped open from his place beside the Father. Every day he is torn, broken, repeatedly undergoes the agony of his transformed body being broken apart and his blood is physically transformed, and poured out from heaven for everyone that takes the sacrament. It wasn't enough, just that one time?. Does this not mean that this process has to reoccur continually at every mass until his return? If that's the case, is there any justifiable reason why he had to die in the first place? What would the significance of that act be? Even the shadow, the Passover lamb, was only broken once per year. If the Catholic model is correct then how does one reconcile the hundreds of NT scriptures (places like Heb. 4) that support that he died once, and that we have now entered into a permanent rest? To continually place Jesus back up on the cross, isn't that denying the saving power (from the hold of death) of the cross in the first place? Again, when Jesus says that he comes to take the sins of the world away for good and then later says, it is finished, is this not a completion of his promise?
Some teachers contend that it is a metaphysical change, that his body does not change from heaven. But, rather transports directly into the host and wine. Yet again, does this not displace the entire purpose of why Jesus himself said that he would leave the Holy Spirit as a comforter, that the comforter, living inside our hearts to bring conviction of sin would also bring our prayers and groanings himself directly to the throne of God? In that light, can you please define the relevance of the metaphysical or physical appearance of Christ in communion? Can it not just be that he wanted us to take communion to remember all that he has done on our behalf? That when he said, take this bread and wine (in solemn reflection and repentance---to go first to our brother/sister that we have sinned against before bringing our gifts to the alter), he really meant do this to remember all that I have delivered you from?
Furthermore, it seems that model is highly consistent with covenants and commands from the OT. Considering language, culture, context of whom Jesus is addressing at this moment in the upper room, and that God did not condone even symbolic cannibalism anywhere in the OT, it would seem that this is one more occasion of remembrance. When the Jews partook of the Lamb at Passover, was it ever considered a physical representation of God's body? The undisputed answer is in all Jewish sects is no, never.
Second of all, there is Mary. Jesus clearly had several brothers, born of Mary later. God used her to bring Jesus into this world when she was a virgin. But, apparently, he let her bear more children later on. I offer up this reference:
"Jesus' brothers are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5). Many commentators hold that the author of the epistle of Jude, who identifies himself as the" "brother of James,"" was one of these brothers (Jude 1). It is also generally believed that the leader of the church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (see Acts 12:17; 15:13). This seems to be confirmed by Paul's reference to his visit to Jerusalem, in which he states that he saw only Peter, and ""James, the Lord's brother"" (Galatians 1:18-19)."
The Catholic Church affirms that she remained a virgin throughout her lifetime despite the historical contradictory evidence. How do you reconcile this position?
I believe that people can worship in all type of settings. All churches have sin. The question is what do we do with the brokenness in order not to sacrifice our own newly won freedoms in Christ? And in the case of continual heretical practice---whether Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise---do we stay and try to make amends or are we better off continuing our search down the road?

I'd like to respond if you don't mind... of course I mean no disrespect in any way...
It has been my observation that Protestant Christians are largely ignorant of the Roman Catholic faith, are quick to believe the literature they find without really validating the sources and are quick to believe one thing about the Catholic faith without really validating their source.
Here's an excellent but lengthy source but orthodox source ... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
A friend of mine, a recent convert to the Roman Catholic faith and tradition pointed me to this resource. There is a wealth of knowledge you now have access to and where you could probably find a non-protestant biased presentation of the Roman Catholic faith but to see from a Roman Catholic resource yourself.
In short, there are certain aspects to the Roman Catholic faith and Protestant faith mind you, it is in the area of mystery. There are some mysteries about God's Kingdom, our faith, and how God chooses to work in and through His body. What remains a mystery to us we accept by faith and where there is a level of mystery there is only understanding up to a certain point and so our best ways to describe mysteries of God will be shallow and perhaps misleading at best. This is where faith comes in. We accept what we do not fully comprehend. However, after reading your response I can tell that you are operating first from misleading information about the Roman Catholic faith, misleading information that many Protestants have come to accept as accurate when in reality it's information not accurate... this is why I posted the link... if you care to research it yourself.
One misleading fact... Of course I'm open to being wrong but I never heard any Catholic teaching about Marry not having any children after Jesus or that she remained in her state of virginity after Jesus had been born but an emphasis given of her virginity at conception and birth of Christ. Anyways... you could likely find your answers with the link I provided in this comment.

Mary remains a virgin before and at the conception of Jesus , during the birth and after the birth of Jesus. She is the Ever Virgin. And this is Catholic Dogma. Find this hard to comprehend or accept? How about Jesus being God and Man? The first problem with Protestantism (and I mean this with respect) is that it believes wholeheartedly in the dogma of SOLA SCRIPTURA. This is a fundamental error, because it is non scriptural, unhistorical and impractical.

ah my friend... you point to my always increasing need to study more. That said, by the time I found myself in Bible College I was aware of certain grammatical errors in the scriptures which had shaken me out of the wrongful doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURA ... however, the dead sea scrolls dates about 100 years after Christ, the earliest manuscripts ever to have been found allows for the scripture that we have today to be virtually the same, as far as major doctrinal points... so while the scripture we read today isn't 100% accurate it may be closer to 90% accurate... it all depends on how well we have been able to study the biblical languages, which will always bring greater clarity to the scriptures we read today. Educated Protestants will know that SOLA SCRIPTURA is wrongful doctrine... uneducated Protestants who are relatively knew to the scriptures may find it rather hard to believe there could be some errors found in the scriptures we read today... however, in light of the dead sea scrolls, these errors are relatively minor and inconsequential in light of 2Tim 3:16-17 which is not so much establishing SOLA SCRIPTURA but rather inspired and God breathed it takes into account that God inspires man who are prone to making mistakes to write these letters...and to passing the letters down from one generation to the next. Now the discussion on the process of canonization of scriptures is a discussion for another thread and perhaps in another setting then this one.. a discussion that perhaps would be a very long one and something I am ill-equipped to engage in. However, again, pointing to the dead sea scrolls as the earliest manuscriptures, the scripture we read today is virtually the same as it was at the end of the first century church. :)

Dear Ralph:
I would also like to respond if I may. I would say, read John 6. The doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ is so clear. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life in you".
How can this be understood in any other way?
The church has ALWAYS believed this ,until the reformation. It was only changed by the reformers. This is a teching passed down through the apostles.

The trouble here is who are these brethren, and what is meant by the word? I am not a greek scholar, but if the early church believed that there were the literal brothers of Jesus, the belief that in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would never have developed. The book "Fundementalism and Catholisism" has a good chapter on this.
Also, this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

Hi Sarah,
For the sake of brevity (or at least attempting to in my last post), in my last post, I did not cite newadvent.org. I had read their lengthy, well constructed reply to the Eucharist and particularly how the Catholic Church views it in light of scripture.
The key focus here is what Jesus himself says about it, both in Matt 26 and in Luke 22. "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." Not, do this so that your daily or weekly sins will be absolved. After all, what if one takes communion today and then goes out and commits premeditated murder before tomorrow or cheats on their taxes before confession, will they miss the boat and end up in purgatory? In contrast, Jesus assures us not just of salvation, but that sin is taken away once and for all. It's not that one won't do bad things---knowingly and unknowingly---until their last breath. We all will. In light of all scripture since Gen. 3 and the fall, it is still within our nature to do so. So, the focus of communion is not sin removal, it is fellowship/intimacy. Sin is absolved forever by one act. Just as Adam brought sin in, Jesus took it out in one act (c.f. Rom 5:12-20).
If one takes communion every day and the wafer and wine are transformed into Jesus' body, there is no need to do anything in "remembrance of him." Why? Because he has just come for another visit. Oh wait. That is why he left his Holy Spirit, so that we could constantly commune with him. That is why Jesus said in John 7 & 8, "I am going away. You will search for me, but will not find me (another of the passages reads will die in your sin.). You cannot go where I am going." Not once does he infer or say, do this so that your sins may be forgiven. Rather, it's form in context is clearly foretelling of what was about to happen to him the next day on the cross.
I challenge you to find one where the disciples comment upon eating the actual body and drinking the actual blood of Jesus at that last supper---that Jesus was all bloody and had a gaping hole from where he ripped flesh and turned it into bread. It was a symbol and much more, I think the new believers and the apostles wanted to remember this great act of Jesus dying and taking the hold of sin away forever every single day (not that we could not/would not commit acts of sin, but it would/could not HOLD us to an eternal destiny of death, apart from God), so they partook with that frequency whenever possible. And, it was his promise that every time we took of it, he would commune in Spirit.
Consider again, the reason for him leaving the Holy Spirit to comfort us daily and to make our prayers known to him. Why would he do such a thing if he remained or re-entered in physical form? He came once, emptied himself of all his godly duties for 33 years, and then ascended back to the right hand of the Father where he resumed his Godhead position. With our prayers being heard, with our sins once, forever absolved as believers, there was only one reason for his presence---intimate communion. And that is a spiritual act. There is absolutely no need for a physical presence. It makes perfect sense in this context that it is in fact a spiritual, not physical connection. Our bodies must first be transformed by death or by return of Jesus to claim his own before we can see God face to face with all substance of this earth removed.

This is a rather lengthy subject, and one I myself am still researching. The Eucharist is a mystery, it is observed in past, present, and future until Christ returns for His church again. It is partaking is such a mystery and I don't believe that we can fully understand in logical finite thinking all that is involved but is has nothing to do with re-crucifying our Lord and Savior, and not every Catholic participates in daily mass either... some do and some don't. It's rather convenient to have daily mass especially if one cannot attend mass on Sundays. You mention Jesus sending the Holy Spirit as a comforter... Catholic view on the Eucharist does not neglect Holy Spirit coming as a comforter. Protestants may have simply research the symbolism used in prayer and the mysteries of God to better understand, the Eucharist and the teachings of Mary as well as the mystery of God the Father, Son, and Spirit. Again, certain mysteries are mysteries because we in our finite thinking may never fully grasp the full depth and meaning behind it all. Some things in our faith journey we simply have to accept by faith even if they're not fully grasped in our finite thinking when compared to the Kingdom of God which also includes what is unseen... we'll never fully understand the finite especially a finite God and Creator when we ourselves operate in a physical world and bound by time... when the Kingdom of God has never been bound by time let alone the physical things we can logically explore in out finite thinking.

I had wanted to make one other comment regarding newadvent.org's discourse. It reminds me of a similar explanation that a well-known, good meaning, protestant church takes on the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. What they both share in common is a presupposition of the positions. Each comes in assuming their arguments rather than looking at the full context of text as the Bereans once did.
Speaking only of the response on the Eucharist, in being bent on stating their point that it is quite a literal part of Jesus' body---that there can be no mistake---they fail to address the scriptures of the last supper to the core issue I address above and here. Why? In my opinion, the argument closes upon itself.
Remember, there are so many wonderful things that all four gospels reveal of Jesus and his acts. Being Jewish, being that God has always condemned cannibalism---for that is what it would have been had Jesus reached into his side and had them sip his blood, eat a portion of his body---even as a mystery transformed---it would have been a momentous, huge deal, spoken of widely throughout all the churches. Yet, the disciples not once make mention of this all important factor anywhere.
And for all the times that many of the home churches did not apostles present and they ate, were they in sin? Not according to any of the apostles. If this were so important, would not Jesus have stressed to only take communion in the presence of a priest/apostle? He apparently did not as it was the practice throughout all of the world right from the start. Paul and Peter both would have condemned this for believers. Yet, not once, do they.

Dear Ralph:
Aren't you missing the fact that Jesus and his disciples were accused of cannabalism?
Here's a good article on it:
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html

THE EUCHARIST IN SCRIPTURE BOTH OT & NT, TRADITION & EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
Scripture
I. Old Testament
a. Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
b. Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice
II. New Testament
a. Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist
b. Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence
c. Jesus' Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice Where the Lamb Must be Eaten
d. Eucharist Makes Present Jesus' One Eternal Sacrifice; Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
e. Jesus in Glory Perpetually Offers the Father His Sacrifice on our Behalf
f. The Book of Revelation and the Holy Mass
Tradition / Church Fathers
I. Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist
II. The Bread and Wine Become Jesus’ Body and Blood
Scripture
I. Old Testament
(a). Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.
Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.
Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.
Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.
Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.
Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.
Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.
Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.
Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.
2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.
(b). Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice
Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.
Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.
Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.
Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.
Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the "family of God" shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.
Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.
Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John 19:33 - none of Jesus' bones were broken.
Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.
Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
Exodus 29:33 – God commands that they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.
Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").
Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.
Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.
2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.
2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.
Neh. 9:15 – God gave the Israelites bread from heaven for their hunger, which foreshadows the true heavenly bread who is Jesus.
Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.
Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.
Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.
Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.
Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.
Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.
II. New Testament
(a). Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist
John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.
Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.
Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.
John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek.
So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.
John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.
John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.
John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.
John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”
Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.
Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.
(b). Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."
Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus' use of "poured out" in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.
Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses' statement "blood of the covenant."
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.
1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.
1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.
1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.
1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.
Acts 2:42 - from the Church's inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the "breaking of the bread") to fulfill Jesus' command "do this in remembrance of me."
Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to "feed" the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.
Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.
Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).
Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ's union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).
Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.
Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to "do this," that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.
Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.
Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.
John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and "pitched His tabernacle" among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.
John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed" His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.
Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).
1 Cor. 12:13 - we "drink" of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.
Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or "ecclesia" (the Church).
Heb. 12:24 - we couldn't come to Jesus' sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.
2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.
Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.
(c). Jesus' Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).
John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.
Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.
Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.
Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.
Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.
Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.
Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.
Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed.
John 19:23 - this verse describes the "chiton" garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.
John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.
Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.
1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.
1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.
Heb. 13:15 - "sacrifice of praise" or "toda" refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul's use of the phrase "the cup of blessing" refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice.
John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.
John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus' Sacred Heart.
Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means "house of bread."
Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a "manger" (which means "to eat"). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.
(d). The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus' One Eternal Sacrifice; it's Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.
Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.
Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.
Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.
Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.
1 Cor. 10:16 - "the cup of blessing" or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.
1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.
1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.
1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.
1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul's usage of the phrase "table of the Lord" in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase "table of the Lord" to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase "table of the Lord" in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.
Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.
(e). Jesus in Glory Perpetually Offers the Father His Sacrifice on Our Behalf
Rev. 1 to 22 - Jesus is described as the "Lamb" 28 times in the book of Revelation. This is because Jesus emphasizes His sacrifice in heaven and in His Holy Catholic Church.
Rev. 1:13 - Jesus is clothed in heaven with a long robe and golden girdle like the Old Testament priests who offered animal sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4.
Rev. 2:17 - the spiritual manna, our Lord's glorious body and blood, is emphasized in the heavenly feast.
Rev. 3:20 - as Priest and Paschal Lamb, our Lord shares the Eucharistic meal with us to seal His New Covenant. Through the covenant of his body and blood, we are restored to the Father and become partakers of the divine nature.
Rev. 5:6 - this verse tells us that Jesus in His glory still looks like a lamb who was slain. Also, Jesus is "standing" as though a Lamb who was slain. Lambs that are slain lie down. This odd depiction shows Jesus stands at the Altar as our eternal priest in forever offering Himself to the Father for our salvation.
Rev. 7:14 - the blood of the Lamb is eternally offered in heaven with the washing of the robes to make them white.
Rev. 14:1, Heb. 12:22 - Zion is the city where Jesus established the Eucharist and which was miraculously preserved after the destruction of Jerusalem. See also Psalms 2:6 and 132:13. It represents the union of heaven and earth, of divinity and humanity. This is why those who enter into the Eucharistic celebration on earth enter into the presence of innumerable angels, the souls of the just made perfect, Jesus the Mediator of the Covenant and His sprinkled blood, and God the Judge of all.
Rev. 19:13 - in all His glory, Jesus' sacrifice is eternally present as He presents Himself to the Father clothed in a robe dipped in blood. Jesus' sacrifice is the focus in heaven and in the Mass. When the Father beholds His Son, He beholds His sacrifice for humanity.
Rev. 19:9 - we are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb where we become one with Him by consuming His body and blood. This is the nuptial union of divinity and humanity.
Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 - Jesus is repeatedly described as "High Priest." But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.
Heb. 2:18 - although His suffering is past tense, His expiation of our sins is present tense because His offering is continual. Therefore, He is able (present tense) to help those who are tempted.
Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).
Heb. 4:14 – Jesus the Sacrifice passes through the heavens by the glory cloud of God, just like the sacrifices of Solomon were taken up into heaven by the glory cloud of God in 2 Chron. 7:1. See also Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; and Acts 1:10.
Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.
Heb. 8:2 - Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also Heb. 12:22-24.
Heb. 8:3 - as High Priest, it is necessary for Jesus to have something to offer. What is Jesus offering in heaven? As eternal Priest, He offers the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood.
Heb. 8:6; 9:15; cf. Heb. 12:22-24; 13:20-21 - the covenant Jesus mediates (present tense) is better than the Old covenant. The covenant He mediates is the covenant of His body and blood which He offers in the Eucharist. See Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - which is the only time Jesus uses the word “covenant” (which is the offering of His body and blood).
Heb. 9:12 – Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.
Heb. 9:14 - the blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Christ's offering is ongoing.
Heb. 9:22 – blood is indeed required for the remission of sin. Jesus' blood was shed once, but it is continually offered to the Father. This is why Jesus takes His blood, which was shed once and for all, into heaven. Heb. 9:12.
Heb. 9:23 – Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (the author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice).
Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.
Heb. 10:19 - we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus on earth in the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus’ offering is presented to God in Heb. 8:2.
Heb. 10:22 - our hearts and bodies are (not were) washed clean by the action of Jesus' perpetual priesthood in heaven.
Heb. 13:10 – the author writes that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. This altar is the heavenly altar at which Jesus presides as Priest before the Father, eternally offering His body and blood on our behalf. See. Mal. 1:7,12; Lev. 24:7; Ez. 41:22; 44:16; Rev. 5:6; 6:9; 9:13; 11:1; 16:7.
Heb. 13:20-21 - Jesus died once, but His blood of the eternal covenant is eternally offered to equip us (present tense) with everything good that we may do God's will.
Heb. 13:8 - this is because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. While His suffering was temporal (because bodily pain is temporal), Jesus and His sacrifice are eternal (because redemption, salvation, and the mediation of the New covenant are eternal).
Heb. 13:15 – the letter concludes with an instruction to continually offer up, through Christ, a sacrifice of praise to God. The phrase “sacrifice of praise” refers to the “toda” animal sacrifices that had to be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30.
1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal priesthood in Jesus, and offer His sacrifice to the Father on earth as He does in heaven.
1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus cleanses us (present tense) from all sin. His blood cannot currently cleanse us unless it is currently offered for us.
(f). The Book of Revelation and the Holy Mass
The Book of Revelation shows us glimpses of the heavenly liturgy – Jesus Christ’s once and for all sacrifice eternally present in heaven. This is why the Church has always incorporated the elements that John saw in the heavenly liturgy into her earthly liturgy, for they are one and the same liturgical action of Jesus Christ our High Priest.
Rev. 1:6, 20:6 - heaven's identification of the priesthood of the faithful is the same as the Church's identification on earth.
Rev. 1:10 - John witnesses the heavenly liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, which is a Catholic holy day of obligation for attending Mass on earth.
Rev. 1:12, 2:5 - there are lampstands or Menorahs in heaven. These have always been used in the Holy Mass of the Church on earth.
Rev. 1:13 - Jesus is clothed as High Priest. Our priests also clothe themselves as "alter Christuses" (other Christs) in offering His sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 - priests wear special vestments in heaven. Our priests also wear special vestments in celebrating the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 2:5,16,21; 3:3; 16:11 - there is a penitential rite in heaven which is also part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 2:17 - there is manna in heaven given to the faithful. This is the same as the Eucharistic manna given to the faithful at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 - there are priests ("presbyteroi") in heaven. Priests offer sacrifice. Our earthly priests participate with the heavenly priests in offering Jesus' eternal sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:8 - heaven's liturgical chant "Holy, Holy, Holy" is the same that is used in the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12, 18:1-8 - the various antiphonal chants in the heavenly liturgy are similar to those used at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:1 - there is a book or scroll of God's word in heaven. This is reflected in the Liturgy of the Word at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:6 and throughout - heaven's description of Jesus as the "Lamb" is the same as the description of Jesus as the Lamb of God in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4 - heaven's emphasis on the intercession of the saints is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4 - there is incense in heaven which has always been part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:14; 7:12; 19:4 - heaven's concluding liturgical prayer "Amen" is the same as is used at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 6:9 - the martyrs who are seen under the heavenly altar is similar to the Church's tradition of keeping relics of saints under the earthly altars.
Rev. 7:3, 14:1, 22:4 - there is the sign of the cross ("tau") in heaven. This sign is used during the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 7:9; 14:6 - the catholicity or universality of heaven as God's family is the essence of the Catholic faith on earth.
Rev. 8:1 - the silent contemplation in heaven is similar to our silent contemplation at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7 - there is an altar in heaven. But no altar is needed unless a sacrifice is being offered in heaven. This is the same sacrifice that is offered on the altars used in the Holy Masses on earth.
Rev. 11:12 - the phrase "come up here" is similar to the priest's charge to "lift up your hearts" at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 12:1-6, 13-17 - heaven's emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 12:7 - heaven's emphasis on the Archangel Michael's intercession is the same as the concluding prayers at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 14:4 - there are consecrated celibates in heaven, as there are with our Catholic priests and religious on earth.
Rev. 15:7, 16:1-4,8,10,12,17; 21:9 - there are chalices (or bowls) in the heavenly liturgy. This is like the chalices used to offer Christ's sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 15:3-4 - there is the recitation of the "Gloria" in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 15:5 - there is a tent or tabernacle in heaven. Tabernacles are used to store the Eucharist at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 17, 19:9 - the consummation of the Lamb at heaven's marriage supper is the same as the Lamb's supper in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 19:1,3,4,6 - there is the recitation of the "Alleluia" in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth.
Tradition / Church Fathers
I. Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
"For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ...Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united." Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).
"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
"For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).
"Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! Thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee." John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, Homily 82 (A.D. 370).
"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.' And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).
"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ...When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
“…if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, 'is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer'; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.'” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).
“ Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He trans-elements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing." Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).
"Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: 'This is My Body.' Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).
"'And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.'" Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).
"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,' you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken." Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461).
"The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energizes and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.” John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).
“Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, 'This is My body,' not, this is a figure of My body: and 'My blood,' not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live." John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).
II. The Bread and Wine Become Jesus’ Body and Blood
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus

Hi Andy,
I have been helped by your ministry over many years. In particular your passion for the Cross and resurrection of Jesus as the centre of everything -(this event included in every way both The Father and the Holy Spirit sacrifice and suffering as you have undestood and taught so well).
My father was irish catholic and my mother was from an english presbyterian family and their marriage lasted 51 years (until my father's death). The gift this gave me, was to see that the church may have many facets, but it is one Church, one Spirit and one Lord.
Up until the end of the 19th century the Catholic church in Ireland had no problem with 'mixed' marriages; but asked the couple to bring up the sons as catholics, if the father's tradition was catholic and vice versa. You and your wife represent to me, the need for our church to be 'one' even in our diversity - I bless you in that calling.

For any that read this, my goal is not to win or lose an argument here. Additionally, in this post, I am not entertaining the idea of whether the Eucharist is actual flesh and blood or metaphorical. There is really a far more critical core issue to address: What actually happens at the time a person partakes of the host and blood?
It should be our common goal as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ to find the best presentation of written texts and spoken doctrines so that we can investigate, imbibe, know, and practice the actual living relationship as God intended, with minimal hindrances, rather than piecemeal, telephone tag, bits and pieces that lead down tangents little resembling original instruction or context. Because it is in living and practicing that truth that we are privileged (we personally benefit the greatest) to walk alongside Christ; experiencing the greatest freedoms that in turn allow us growing clarity of mind and soul. This open, but testable, teachable status brings greater challenges. It also yields a deeper dependence and intimate contact than going along with what we know to be comfortable while in this early dwelling. In that, I cite Acts 17:11 as example:
Acts 17: 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. It is good advice: Let's test everything and cling only to that which is good (taken from 1 Thes. 5:18).
In the following, I used sources such as Catholic Answers, beginningcatholic.com, the Bible, and Newadvent.org. to discuss the act of communion, Maybe contrasting what it does not/cannot do is the first step.
Does taking in the Eucharist absolve us from daily sin?
"We receive this salvation upon hearing the Gospel the Apostles preached, through the Catholic Church, and being baptized (Mk 16:15-16). Then in order to maintain this salvation of liberation from sin, Jesus instituted the Eucharist in order that we could receive the necessary grace to remain free from serious sin (… give us this day our daily bread…)." Catholic Answers states http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-forgiveness-of-sins This source asserts that sin is taken away in two forms: First, is by Baptism. As sin came in through Adam it leaves through Baptism. That is in direct contradiction of Romans 5:18 (to name just one of several examples). It (SIN) left (past tense) through one man, Jesus Christ (nothing at all to do with Baptism, which has several meanings, not one of which is to remove sin. It's primary purpose is Identification with Christ and all that He did for them (past tense).
Second, by communion following abosolution, contrition. There is not one example anywhere in the New Testament where believers are instructed to take communion to receive forgiveness of their sins. We are instructed to first go and get things right with their brother before bringing a gift to the alter (instruction to get forgiveness from those that we have sinned against before approaching the alter with a gift). We are instructed to take communion in solemn reverence recognizing all that Jesus did in (past tense) dying for our sin and that he with that one act, assured our future. But, nowhere, do we see example of communion absolving one's trespasses or of instruction to do that to be free of one's sin. That should be a point of deep reflection. Which one is right? Clearly, these positions are at opposition with each other.The catechism and many other Catholic sources spell out that daily sins are absolved in this way. That teaching conflicts with the earliest church fathers which precede all other teachings. You should be asking yourself, why is that?
Really, the core divergence comes from answering this question: What is sin? In reading the catechism, in every Catholic statement of faith: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm one answer surfaces. Christ is resacrificed over and over again. Communion is the vehicle where Christ comes down from the heavenly throne to absolve new sin, following confession. It is in this act that this person is restored to faith. Whereas the book of Hebrews 9 and 10 presents a stark contrast to that position. From the earliest of times, with the original apostles alive to contradict bad behavior at any time, sin is/was absolved very differently. Should that be a point of concern? I would think so. It changes the entire understanding and purpose of communion, for one.
Sin is either absolved by Christ coming down and resacrificing himself by allowing his body and blood to be eaten so that this act will clear man's condition for today and restore communion one more time or the taking of communion is an act of solemn reflection and remembrance to live by what He did once and for all on the cross. Both are not true.
I can always tell songs written within the Catholic Church compared to various Protestant/Evangelical sources. Songs that have stances, "He dies for my sin" mean something very different from, "He died for my sin." Did he die once and for all or is it ongoing? Because we commit acts of sin every day---willing and unwillingly, knowing and unknowingly---is our relationship restored by what we do or by what he did so that we might eternally be able to approach him? This is in no way semantics. It is only by answering these questions that one can be certain of their understanding of sin and our relationship to it.
Again, those reading thus far, I am sure want this freedom and certainty. No one wants to be left out or be left in a cloud about our positions of faith. Make no mistake, we are all called to search it out as part of our growing desire and sanctity in Christ. When reading sources, we all need to remember, oldest ones that are part of a great body of agreed upon works come first before more recent ones. This was how the Jewish scholars handled these positions of faith.

Brief addendum: I made a statement about Baptism needing more clarity: Both in Acts 2 and in 22 we see examples of inclusive Baptism related to washing away one's sins. In the first, it was first stated to repent and baptism was the identification that sins are washed away. However, it was bundled with repentance. Without it, baptism would not have washed away their sin. In Act 22, Saul, now to be Paul had repented three years before. The act of Baptism was the identification for himself and for the church that his sins were washed away.

Sorry, one more clarification: Matthew 26:28. (also, Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20 all of these are at the Last Supper before Jesus offered up his body once and for all. They refer to forgiveness through his blood. These statements make total sense in that light. Again, we are to remember and solemnly reflect with humility that this happened once for all time.

Andy, This is an interesting bit of news. I applaud your courage to follow your heart and what you believe is the leading of the Holdy Spirit. I can see how God will use you to bring new life into the broken areas of the Catholic church relative to Dessert Stream's ministry in sexual purity. Among all the many blogs and noise this has created there is an elephant in the room that is hardly addressed. You did not address it on the DS web page of questions that you answered. That is the one thing for which Luther said, the church stands or falls, soteriology, how we are saved. Catholics believe it's Christ plus, sacraments, works, fill in the blank. This is in my opinion spitting in the face of God. The atonement on the cross was not enough. How odd for me the man who dons a cross for all these years, and we know, not for a fashion statement, who knows it is central to all freedom in Christ and the crux of our salvation, justification and purity, to now embrace a church full of anacrhonisms,and irrelevancies, (icons and adornments), and a diminished view of the atonement that requires sometihng more. Let the Catholic theologians pontificate all they will, if there is anything you must do but, believe as the theif did on the cross, in order to be saved, then it is a works theology. I think you missed the central point of what should be everyone's main concern here. Having been raised Catholic and studied and debated this with Catholics, I, as many bloggers here and Protestants worldwide, see huge inconsistancies with Church authority, succession, the idea of infalibility, impeccability, veneration of Mary, the notion that works or sacraments are meritorious and on and on. Wycliffe an other great men were martyred for trying to bring the Word of God to the masses while the Vatican was doing everything it could to keep God's Word from them as a means of control, not to mention the horrendous atrocities of some of the Popes, indulgences etc. Many gave their lives to defend the great Solas, faith alone, scripture as our final authority, grace alone etc. I have wonderful Catholic friends, I belive most are saved, as I believe most Protestants are, (many?), however I would literally feel myself a traitor to the great sacrifices of blood that were offered to free the church from tryanny, a hidden Bible, and on and on . These men in a way died for me, for our freedoms, and they were killed by Catholics, I know of few if any Catholics that made the ultimate sacrifice for future generations. Well, enough of my prattling, it's done, I believe God will use your decision, (I read recently that the preisthood is 23% homosexual), I pray for the stress this will put on your marriage as I believe such monumental decisions should only be undertaken when there can be unity in the marraige concerning them. I believe that unity is more importatnt that where you chose to worship. To any Protestants who may be influenced by such decisions by leaders such as youself, I'm dismayed. Blessings on your journey.

Hi Andy,
Having known this for some time, and now just reading your post and responses - I bless what you are doing. Coming to know Jesus for me was through the study of my catechism, the lives of the "saints" and yes, even studying Catholic doctrine, as a child of 8. My public declaration of commitment through confirmation was genuine. My pursuit of a walk with God was very real.
I also walked away for a period because of my "enlightment" to the Jesus movement of the '70's and the influx of youth to evangelical churches. That said, I left the Catholic church because of the "errors" in doctrine. In my more recent years, I have found myself pulled back to the Catholic church for certain occasions especially, because the one thing I miss the most is the tradition of history as it is told through the Bible, and also the liturgy, but most of all the reverence for God as Almighty and Sovereign. Something we sorely lack in most evangelical churches today.
I say all of this to also point out that no church is perfect in doctrine or interpretation of scripture. While the Catholic church has some beliefs I cannot align with, so does the Pentecostal, Church of God, and yes, even Vineyard (among others). This does not mean I condemn them but rather choose what is good and what I can tolerate. I choose to believe that God can do his work even in errant beliefs, and have seen how many Catholics are committed in their walk with God. I see what the prayers of intercessors are doing for freedom to be gained in that place. I am happy to say that with total freedom, I can walk back into a Catholic church and partake of history, reverence and fullness of what God has for me there.
Blessings to you as you walk out and work out your faith in this new season. Know that there are many who walk with you. May the peace of our Lord be with you! ~Debbie

Didn't think I'd chime in again, but the entry above just wrangled me. To Debbie, there is a monumental difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary, doctrines within the church. I believe most of us are threatened by diversity, while God celebrates it. However to cite Protestant denominations, including the Vineyard as expressions of faith that we may take issue with on certain topics, and to comare that to what I believe is the most important, (I'm in good company on this), event in the last 1,000 years, i.e., the Great Reformation and the price that was paid for the great truths and freedoms purchased for all humanity there, is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. The camel being, as mentioned in my post above, how we are saved, among a collection of other divisive 'primary' issues. To gloss over any institution, individual, or teaching that says we must in any fashion or in any degree work to secure our salvation is perhaps the most important issue on the table, in fact so much so, that it is one of the earmarks of false religions and heresys throughout church history. While I believe God is alive and well within many parts of the Catholic church, returning to it for some sense of history, (which i get), for the security of belonging to a vast and diverse family, (which i get), and becuase we may like some of the ritual and other accutrements of it's worship, yet failing to take seriously the key doctrines for whiich scores of great men paid with their lives to defend, is like choosing a president because of how he looks or carries himself, over looking at his policies. Thankfully God is gracious beyond comprehension, and in the end He will work all such things to the good, I nevertheless cringe when I hear Christians lump things such as end times prophecy, how we are baptized, are we Charismatic, do we speak in tongues, or forms of liturgy or worship, with the question that is foundational to our faith, how is it we are saved? To add anything to faith alone, by grace alone, is to join the throngs of cults, flase religions and the biblically illiterate. I believe God expects more from us than that. While Barna and other surveys show the level of illiteracy among Christians is embarrasingly high, I believe this one issue, can be the difference between someone being saved, and having their faith built of a foundation of sand, I believe is could be a divisive issue as to whether someon is saved or not. If we needed to do something else besides believe, then apparently Jesus was out of his mind when he told the theif next to him, "today you will be with me in paradise." This is the great heresy of Catholocism. I believe the many other legitimate issues take a back seat to this one. Aquinas said, in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity. The matters that are central to leaving Protestantism to align with Catholicism, are in the catagory of "essential." Blessings to all - Jim

Hi there,
I'm chiming in again... I'm going to try to make this short...
My Grandmother was a devout Roman Catholic and she influenced the faith I have today. My Grandparents raised my dad and his 2 sisters as Roman Catholic, a Great Aunt of mine was a Nun for a short period of time, before taking her final vows she decided that being a Nun wasn't for her but remained a devout Roman Catholic herself. So, my family on my dad's side is largely First Nations / Roman Catholic. My Grandfather was actually raised Ukrainian Orthodox... so the Roman Catholic tradition is in my spiritual DNA I say although I have never been through Catechism. I say this to bring up a major point here... I don't say this in a demeaning way or anything like that it's just simply what it is. By and large Evangelicals remain ignorant of the Roman Catholic tradition and faith. And as I continue my own faith journey and come across Evangelicals who are anti-Catholic I actually can't believe how ignorant many are. I say this as an Evangelical although being raised experiencing the culture if you will, the culture with a Roman Catholic family, having experienced mass and having seen the rituals... even in all that I have experienced I will still not claim to have full understanding of the Roman Catholic faith but the more I learn the more I respect and the more I am drawn towards the Roman Catholic church.
As Evangelicals there is a bit of skepticism... so much that the mystery is not well received, many want to understand the infinite with their finite minds and this is just not possible. At some level we have faith to accept what we do not see with our eyes but accept as a reality... this is faith.
In all my years and experience I have never heard the Roman Catholic tradition being a works based faith. I have thought at one point that it was all about empty rituals and works but the more I learn the more I realize how wrong my assumptions were. Salvation according to the Catechism is by grace through faith, receiving the gift of baptism, and penance... salvation is by grace but if you're truly converted then we will live a repentant lifestyle before our Lord... true conversion will always lead to changed behavior... the Christian faith is a high calling towards holiness and one thing I admire of the Roman Catholic church is the fact that the Roman Catholic church hasn't lowered the standards of living as a Christ follower. The tradition and symbolism has always been simply cultivating a deep and personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the symbolism tools in prayer and meditation...
I am in a place now where I am looking more into the Reformation movement... and the religious wars I can't help but to see errors in both sides but the more I study Catholicism the more I am captivated by it as a whole, my relationship with Jesus, the symbolism and tradition of the Roman Catholic church, I wrestle with the mysteries ... but if there were not any mysteries there would not be any faith.
1 Corinthians 13:12
English Standard Version (ESV)
12 For (A)now we see in a mirror dimly, but (B)then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as (C)I have been fully known.
A Catholic is on a spiritual journey just as an Evangelical is but there is diversity there and there is also a need for further education in what each other believes... Evangelicals are by and large ignorant of the Roman Catholic tradition and faith.
As Patricia above said, "You and your wife represent to me, the need for our church to be ‘one’ even in our diversity" Andy, I would agree with this... how you and your wife stand together in your marriage in this diversity in expression of worship it truly does represent this.... with you and your wife along with others I know are in the same situation... to be unified in one faith but differing expressions of one faith... in situations like this, when I see friends converting to Catholicism and with my own spiritual journey I am always forever being lead to 1 Corinthians chapter 13... the famous love chapter but more specifically verse 12, "... now I know in part... then I shall know fully," I honestly believe that for those of us who claim to know Jesus really need to be mindful that right now we only see in part, we don't know fully, there are mysteries that we just need to accept by faith.

Sarah,
What you see below is official Catholic doctrine relevant to our conversation here.
Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema. (see note 1)
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.
Apparently it's not just Protestants that are "ignorant" of Catholic doctrine.
This issue split history. Again, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, and Sola Scripture, and horrendous levels of corruption in the Papacy, and other things you would find on Luther's 95 Thesis as you study the reformation are no small matters. This is one of the great divides in human religious history, and to imagine that it was based on some misunderstanding on Luther's part or other reformers and Protestants that followed and preceded him, as if in their ignorance they simply did not understand what Rome was really teaching, is insulting to all Protestants, and a admission of naivete concerning this monumental 'protest' and parting of ways in the history of the Christian faith. I would challenge you also to Google "10 Worst Popes of all time" just to get a glimpse into the horrors that inspired the reformers to part ways with Rome. The doctrines I believe are most important, however the corruption and immorality from the top down cannot be glossed over, and no good Catholic should be in the dark about their Church's history. When you then try to build the idea of Papal Succession, Infallibility, Impeccability, on this chain with such weak links, you have a veritable house of cards. Much more could be said, but just wanting to make the case that both Protestants and Catholics exhibit ignorance on a range of topics, and that the Reformation was not some ancient event equivalent to a modern day "church split. There is very good reasons it stands as one of the most important events in human history. blessings

If you do a closer exegetical study of the bible you will see that there is nothing in the Catholic faith that contradict what the bible teaches.... in light of that let me ask you a couple of questions...
Matthew 6:9-15
New International Version (NIV)
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’
14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Would you not have to agree that a requirement of salvation is that you forgive?
What is that then? It sounds as if there is something on our part that we must then actually do.
In order to be forgiven our sins we must forgive .... otherwise we stand condemned in our sin.
Philippians 2:12-13
New International Version (NIV)
Do Everything Without Grumbling
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
How do we reconcile "faith alone" when in this passage of scripture we called to work out our salvation with fear and trembling... how would you reconcile this verse?
It is by God's grace we are empowered to work out our salvation with fear and trembling... if we need to forgive in order to receive forgiveness there is a partnership involved and thus something we must do... and if we don't the question remains as to whether or not there has been true conversion to Christ. Why else then would we be exhorted in the scripture to work out our salvation and why else would we be taught in the bible that in order to be forgiven our sins we must forgive? If we haven't been able to forgive others then we ourselves would not be able to receive forgiveness and thus remain in our sin.

The new writings of church fathers cannot and must not contradict previously accepted writings that happened during Jesus' lifetime. The writers and dates of the NT writings precede later church fathers writings, including all that we read in the catechism. 2 Peter 1:16: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." So, Peter, an eyewitness of his majesty,clearly agrees and adheres to what is practiced among all the other churches and apostles. This is important. Included in that strongly held teaching is the once and for all covering of sin by Jesus dying one time upon the cross as I referenced in an earlier thread. Understanding these scriptures is tantamount to living and believing the words of Jesus, to entering once and for all into that great rest (Heb. 4) or in following one's own made-up Jesus. Christ's sacrifice for sin (for all sin, past, present, and future) is laced so heavily within the NT that you would have to rip up the NT in it's entirety to allow the catechism teachings. Any writings that contradict this supposition held by the eyewitnesses, those that lived with Jesus during his ministry days on earth, is an anathema---adhering not at all to what was practiced by the apostles.
As you can see, we have a critical contradiction, not just an in-house disagreement. Jesus' sacrifice was either once and for all, as the 1500+ bundle of earliest manuscripts support, or it was what is taught later on, as seen in the catechism. Logically and clearly, it cannot be both. There is no mystery here. This comes down to the core of what Jesus' appearance meant. And remember, the first century produced over 1,000,000 Jewish believers who were very familiar with Is. 52-53, Psalm 22 and the like. Once they saw that Jesus was the final sacrificial lamb spoken of for thousands of years in the OT, it was an easy conversion. The final sacrifice was not a new teaching. It was, in fact, merely identifying that Jesus was that fulfillment as Messiah. Communion taken in each other's houses was considered acceptable so long as people knew this was a solemn act where the presence of his Spirit acted, and that they were doing this in order to remember exactly what great sacrifice Jesus had originally and finally performed for them. If they did this they were fine.
There was no need for a priest or an apostle or anyone else to absolve them from new sin or Paul (1 Cor. 11:17-34) would have told them to stop this practice immediately. Rather, they got sick and brought judgement upon themselves because they did not regard the bread and wine as His body, which in his once and for all sacrifice that they were to remember in solemn gratitude that took away the power of death and their sin. Their judgement came not from breaking a priestly procedure, but from disavowing or discarding what the practice of communion was. So, God's covenant was being disavowed by some in the Corinthian Church's flippancy, and just like judgement came down upon those who mishandled the Ark of the Covenant in the OT, we see a similar outcome here.

The new writings of church fathers cannot and must not contradict previously accepted writings that happened during Jesus’ lifetime. The writers and dates of the NT writings precede later church fathers writings, including all that we read in the catechism. 2 Peter 1:16: “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” So, Peter, an eyewitness of his majesty,clearly agrees and adheres to what is practiced among all the other churches and apostles. This is important. Included in that strongly held teaching is the once and for all covering of sin by Jesus dying one time upon the cross as I referenced in an earlier thread. Understanding these scriptures is tantamount to living and believing the words of Jesus, to entering once and for all into that great rest (Heb. 4). To do otherwise is to ignore this centrally accepted teaching, and then be left to follow one’s own made-up Jesus. Christ’s sacrifice for sin (for all sin, past, present, and future) is laced so heavily within the NT that it requires ripping up the NT in it’s entirety to allow the catechism teachings. Any writings that contradict this supposition held by the eyewitnesses---those that lived with Jesus during his ministry days on earth---is an anathema—adhering not at all to what was practiced by the apostles.
As you can see, we have a critical contradiction, not just an in-house disagreement. Jesus’ sacrifice was either once and for all, as the 1500+ bundle of earliest manuscripts support, or it was what is taught later on, as seen in the catechism. Logically and clearly, it cannot be both. There is no mystery here. It comes down to the core of what Jesus’ appearance on earth to man meant.
As a sidenote, the first century produced over 1,000,000 Jewish believers who were very familiar with Is. 52-53, Psalm 22 and the like. Once they saw that Jesus was the final sacrificial lamb spoken of for thousands of years in the OT, it was an easy conversion. The final sacrifice was not a new teaching. It was, in fact, merely identifying that Jesus was that fulfillment as Messiah.
Communion taken in each other’s houses, according to the NT writings, was considered acceptable so long as people knew this was a solemn act where the presence of his Spirit acted, and that they were doing this in order to remember exactly what great sacrifice Jesus had originally and finally performed for them. If they did this they were fine. There was no need for a priest or an apostle or anyone else to absolve them from new sin or Paul (1 Cor. 11:17-34) would have told them to stop this practice immediately. Rather, they got sick and brought judgement upon themselves because they did not regard the bread and wine as His body, and a holy act whereby mercy and judgement occurred. This disavowing or discarding the practice of communion was part of the Corinthian Church’s flippancy, and just like judgement came down upon those who mishandled the Ark of the Covenant in the OT, we see a similar outcome here.

I agree with Ralph. To Sarah, i have this to say. We're dealing with very intense theological issues that scholars have debated for centuries. I'm not going to get through to you, and neither are you, me. I had an ongoing 3 year debate with a very sophisticated Catholic trying to get me back into the 'fold.' A fool's errand by the way - i just became massively more steeled in my position as i did further research. You seem unwilling to look at the elephant in the room that I pointed out, i.e., the atrocities committed by Rome, all the while while trying to abuse the flock into thinking Pope's were infallible, and impeccable and that the succession from Peter's appointment ( a dubious affair on it's own - another whole debate) to future Popes could remain intact. You've also ignored the burning at the stake of those who wanted everyone to be able to read their Bibles. You can NOT thank the Catholic church for that, rather, you must thank it's enemies! And this is the house of cards, that that very same church is God's institution on earth and that we should submit to it's illusory 'authority'. This is really absurd.
Now to your question, for the part Ralph may have not emphasized, I believe you would do well to study, justification, and sanctification. You can find a whole list of scriptures if you Google the subject, both for and against works. I actually have seen a list side by side somewhere. If however, you take the time to honestly study them, (deeper exegetical study as you put it), quite to the contrary, you will find most of the pro- works scriptures are merely talking about sanctification. The verses you allude to are in my opinion dealing with 'progressive' sanctification, that is the 'working out our salvation', which literally means being separate from the world, and doing our part to become Christlike and maintain a holy life through the power of the Holy Spirit, and nothing to do with earning our salvation. There is also 'positional' sanctification which is what has taken place when we were justified. This has been referred to as the "already, and the not yet". Works only show evidence that regeneration has taken place. That is all. Again, if they were salvific then the efficacy of Christ's death and resurrection would be called into question, and found to be insufficient.. I am not a Calvinist so I would agree in part with you that we must do something, and that is 'receive' the gift that was purchased for us. That's it, merely accept the gift of salvation as the thief did on the cross. So I don't believe in 'irresistible grace' one of the tenets of TULIP. We must believe, we must express that in faith. God does the rest. If you wish to put yourself back under the law, (read Galatians, Romans etc), because you derive some sense of pride from your accomplishments, then by all means join up with the Catholics you will be in good company. Christ died so that I no longer have to be in such bondage. As to the need for this conversation; based on Vatican II, one does not need to be a Catholic in order to be saved, so, seeing the great divide between us, and that men much smarter than any in this debate have failed to bridge it, we should probably just wish each other well. Lastly, space does not allow me here to open other cans of worms here. Plenty of books have been written about them, but from a Protestant perspective, the Catholic church is riddled with issues that can be intelligently argued to be in conflict with scripture or in some sense problematic. I would challenge you to do a little more reading as you seem a little too confident and perhaps even a little naive relative to the boatload of disparities that do in fact exist. At least this might serve to cure you of this illusion that some of the greatest scholars in human history, just don't get what seems like third grade math to you, or that they just don't understand what Catholicism is really about. Disagree all you want, but being dismissive with the great body of scholarship on these subjects, merely shows you have a lot more to learn. You seem to believe that Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards et al, have not done a "closer exegetical study of scriptures" as you have on the subject and that if they indeed had been as studious as you, (Edwards spent 14 hours a day in his study and is widely considered to be the greatest theological mind America has ever produced), they would have somehow come around. This is nonsense. At any rate i enjoyed engaging with you, and blessings to you!

Thank you, Jim Golding. Well thought out and well articulated. I am bewildered and perplexed by Andrew's "conversion" to Catholicism. One of my dearest friends and an amazing Christian is indeed a born-again Catholic, and I have seen so much of Christ in her life. I do not doubt Andrew's love for the Savior whatsoever, but I am questioning his wisdom and leadership on a number of issues of recent. Please pray for him and this ministry -- the Lord can take care of the rest.

Hi Andy--I recently talked to you on the phone,and due to my present driving distance from Ft,Worth I can't attend the meetings just yet,so you plugged me in to your blog(much appreciated). Now I see that you have become a Catholic and I'm elated!! I was an evangelical Christian for many years and began seriously investigating the Catholic Church while in Bible College.I discovered that the literal interpretation of the Eucharist is the historical Christian belief,and that led me to reading the Fathers,Saints,and Spiritual Masters of the Catholic Church.After several years of prayer,Scripture study,and the reading of these historical representatives of Christianity,I too became a Catholic.So welcome home brother--hope we get to meet soon.In Christ's love,Stephen

Do a study in covenant beginning with Noah, Abraham, Jonathan and David, and many OT saints, then parallel the description and definition in the Last Supper and the Cross. It is my prayer that eyes may be opened. Whether unilateral--such as God acting exclusively upon our behalf or two parties in agreement, once a covenant was cut "Korath" and "Beryith" from the Hebrew it established a once and for all status. Various stones, alters were erected or amulets or phylacteries were worn in remembrance. On that day of his death, we entered in as heir to share completely the triumph over death and his sufferings for his lost and broken people; some that would and some that will not enter into this covenant. In light of all the OT and that Jesus was speaking to his Jewish audience, covenant was clearly understood as a one time act that continued fully alive from the day that it was made into eternity. Death was left upon that cross once and for all. That means that all the sins that would could possibly accumulate in this life will not keep a single soul from being an unbroken heir for all that would bow their knee in allegiance and acknowledgment that he broke that stronghold once and for all. That sins committed today and forevermore will not keep a single soul from direct contact with the Son of God following their last breath on earth. Therefore, the taking of communion, that ingesting of Jesus to absolve new sin is a complete misunderstanding and non-acceptance of his one time covenant act. Rather, it is to remember in as greatest detail possible all that he did for you then so that you can live as heir in all that he is today. Taking communion is a celebration. Yes, since he is perfect, we are asked to relieve our consciences and burdens upon him. so that we have no barriers between us in this moment. Moses could not see God face to face because sin was not yet absolved. Aaron behind the curtain on the Day of Atonement could not see God as all sin was absolved because it was a shadow act. Only in that moment when Jesus died on the cross, saying "it is finished" and the 8" thick woven veil of the Holy of Holies was torn by God from the top down to the bottom, in that very moment a covenant was struck. The price was paid and the Father and Jesus paved a path for us to come directly to Him as "friends." John 15: 14-16 states that servants do not know what the master is doing, but that he now calls us friends because--why--because all that he has heard from the Father he now forever shares with us. Eternity for believers starts at the moment we enter an agreement with Him to let Him be Lord and Savior. We are like cucumbers that have now been pickled; our lives are transformed permanently through and through. How can it change back? A pickle will never be a cucumber again. A transformed believer will never lose his/her salvation by the degree of sin that they have done or hold before their last communion. Communion is a reflection upon this covenant, not a continuation of allegiance, not a re-saving of a momentary lost soul in the affliction of a broken world. Brokenness does not disqualify us. Ergo, communion must be looked at entirely differently. We must not look at Jesus as a continual death offering. Rather, a refection of how that one act bonded us forever. This is the most important aspect to grasp: When Jesus is taken as body and blood, it is to recall all that he DID. What he did does not get done again each time. Is it part of the sanctification process of our souls? In reflection, yes. In application, it does not absolve us from new sin. Our ability to come directly into the Holy of Holies because of a one-time act 2,000 years ago, does. We must be careful to remember that putting him back up on the cross daily or weekly is at the very least a complete misunderstanding of that covenant act or perhaps far more grievous, those that participate in this way personally re-stake him back up on the cross, that it was not enough back then to absolve you for all time. If your thinking demands that you do this, you have no assurance and you are not heirs to the throne right now, and you are in contradiction with his words. To make things right requires a change of thinking right now, a change in the way you will look at and participate in communion forevermore. Just repent, go on your way, and do not agree to participate in this broken way when you take communion from now on. Let your understanding be enhanced. Let freedom penetrate and fill your soul friends!

Only God's grace can make the scales fall from your eyes--never your own private understanding of Scripture--no matter how eloquent that understanding may be--read the Church fathers and find out the historical Christian interpretation of Scripture.Do you imagine that the Church was in darkness until the heretical "reformers" came along? Do you imagine that your personal interpretation of Scripture is authoritative over all the 30,000 other protestant denominations? Are you as stripped of self will as were the saints that you disagree with with strongly? I sense a strong pride of authority in your conversation--simply "humble yourself in the sight of the Lord",and rejoice in this,your brother's,embrace that he is receiving from his heavenly Father. Your argumentation only grieves the Holy Spirit of love.
May the peace of Christ be with you,Stephen

Stephen, I have read a fair amount of the early Fathers, their implicit views and quotes. I have kept references bookmarked. Hopefully, you will approve of this website. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html I chose it because of the simplicity, dates, exact quotes. I do not discount the early father's writings that are on this site. They do provide insight.
We are very fortunate as well to have over 1,500+ manuscripts that form the NT. They are quite clear in their messages. The gospel message of four corroborating stories of the words and events of Jesus, Peter and Paul as eyewitnesses with the earliest churches--all inspired directly by God whereas church Fathers, though close in time, still were commentary in comparison, and we are told in scripture by the earliest Peter and John to not add to the books.
Of course it would be better if we sat down together and first listed terms and definitions for our discussion, with or without agreement, we could both see more clearly what the other was referring to. Certainly, 2 + 2 always = 4. If one of us says 5, lets see how we got to that answer. That said, I will attempt to answer your questions below. Before responding again, I would ask that you read my threads beginning February 8th to present.
My understanding of scripture involves five things before ever attempting to apply it: Language, Culture, Context, History, and Grammar. In saying that, I come from a Jewish background. One of the first things understood by scholars is that the Talmud or the Midrash commentaries, though they attempt to explain, are always subject to the text because they are written much later than the original texts. And there are disagreements that result between Jewish sects and even Jewish Rabbi's within sects. The earliest Church Fathers like Clement shortly followed Peter's lifetime ( a couple of Pope's later). I refer you to this helpful page:that I reference. In that understanding, I see no conflict in the earliest of fathers or the scriptural reference of 1 Cor. 10 and 11 (that would take a bit of time to unravel) with regard to the presence of God and it's transforming power at communion.
The Eucharist--whether we accept it as true flesh and blood or not--is not my primary argument. Where I take issue is where the Catholic church has turned the Eucharist into an absolution process for sin--scripture nor the early Fathers contradict the following: We are instructed to come directly to God first with our sin so that when we take the host, we are freed from our burdens of this world, and in so doing, have better and uninterrupted communion/fellowship with him. According to scripture, we live in eternity today as sealed heirs. When he said, "It is finished" and the temple curtain tore as a seal of that covenant, it was done. Eternal death was conquered.
The catechism takes a very different line of thinking. Sin and the power of death are absolved over and over again, every single day around the globe. He has to be recaptured, ridiculed, scourged, overcome death's hold, and jump out of the grave--again and again. Daily sins are part of the old enslaved nature that God allows to linger for purposes that include refinement and humility, yes. But daily sin or accumulation does not separate us any longer. The price was paid once and for all. And, because we are heirs according to Romans, we immediately join him once we leave our bodies in this world. The gospels, some of the epistles, and the entire book of Hebrews to support my claim.
Look at the last supper. Jesus was making a covenant in a familiar manner as had happened previously, dating back to the times of Noah Being that Jesus was speaking to an entire Jewish crowd of Apostles, I mean no condescension, I think you would find great clarity in understanding as to how Jesus acted unilaterally in studying those earlier covenants. The breaking of bread at the last supper as well as when the temple veil ripped in two as he breathed his last, make everything 3D crystal clear. They are monumental landmarks of what was to be remembered, not what continues to happen.
You call the reformers, "heretical." Yet, you fail to take the log out of your own church from that time period. Is reform so bad when any church--Catholic or Protestant--jump away from the truth? Have their been reforms in Protestantism? Of course there has. Just trace the sects. Is that bad? No, not necessarily. When a church goes bad it needs reform. Paul spent a great deal of time reforming the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, for example. During the 1200-1600's, the Catholic Church was pretty far off in many ways from the 1st and 2nd century Church. Spanish Inquisition, purchased endulgences for enriching the Pope and church hierarchy, playing off superstitions of new converts in far lands for beautification projects of central churches (fleecing the flocks). I could go on. Do you not see that these were bad practices that need restoration/reformation? The practice of daily communion for control and how it was practiced--all of this at that time--true followers of Christ were tried to work with the Church. Instead it reached for their heads quite literally. That was quite a grave business at that time. And, I would be the first to say many protestant churches fail in some of these horrible man-made slave traps today. So, I'm just picking on bad behavior, not any particular church.
Do you think I have a personal interpretation that is out of mainstream with 30,000 protestant denominations, that I have some private kind of understanding? Really? You need to give specific examples. Some don't, but many more do follow my line of reasoning regarding the process of the Eucharist and most of the other concepts in my thread. I would like to address each specifically, rather than a broad stroke. Remember, brothers are here to enlighten one another for the purpose of growing closer to the body and to Christ.
Selfless will is a hard concept to measure, though a good thing to strive for in sanctification. I do not always think it measures one's degree of piety accurately. Many of the so-called saints in both Catholicism and Protestant lines are not so pious. I cite Jeremiah 17. No one can know a man's motives except God. What appears on the outside is most certainly not the measure. It is good to measure all saints by who they long to follow, who really lingers in their hearts, by the words that flow freely when no one's looking too close, not their outward piousness.
Finally, I think you misjudge my caring heart for an authoritative one. I care when people become enslaved to false doctrines. I cannot help myself. I too have been enslaved before on more than one occasion. I know what it's like to be set free and never want to return as well. It is from this spring that I drink that overflows. I care about Andy and everyone else reading this forum because there are so many things that stagnate or shipwreck our relationship to God. Why live there when you can have confidence from God's mouth that you have entered a deep peace when you know him. Sanctification comes in surrender, not willing it from your own inner strength.
I intend to be at peace with my brothers. When people distort the things that the earliest Fathers, Paul and Peter and John fought for, and gave their flesh and blood lives for, I cannot help but contend for that. Most of Paul's letters to the churches are pleading, arguing, and solving conflicts that call the church back to what Jesus stood for. He would have preferred never to have to do that and rather just usher new folks into the fold. If that is what you call argumentive, then yes I am! And I will continue to argue for the peace that passes all understanding to rule, rather than falsely built dogmas. I don't care who it upsets and if it seems wrong because it contests with what they are comfortable with. I boast in that weakness. In contrast to your statement, I cannot help but write these essays. They flow from love. And the Holy Spirit who lives within me is not divided.
You might ask yourself as well if you worried that you might have strayed in allegiances. Many times, I have been challenged quite heavily in my positions. Sometimes I was embarrassed. Two separate occasions, it took me a couple of years to battle what I originally thought to be right. But, in the end, I surrendered my will to what scripture portrayed. On two other occasions I was tripped up in my faith to the point of abandonment, once for three months after the first year and another couple of times for three days while I investigated claims; one turned out to be a lie, another a hard teaching of Jesus' to understand. I came through it all stronger. I embrace that which is good and leave behind the rest as I am instructed by scripture. What is arrogant or prideful about that? We all win when we do that. We win closeness to God. That is how King David walked and God said he was a man after his heart.

Ralph, you're spot on. And to Stephen, it's seems obvious that you've already drank the Kool-Aid. I'm afraid I can't help. Catholicism, after the world thanks it for it's many contributions, owes the world an apology for it's atrocities and the even worse crimes of using it's power to cover them up. Protestants ......heretics? Of course, at least to the imagined elite. This is why the Vatican burned people like Wycliffe at the stake, they were trying to get scripture into the hands of God's people and this was a direct threat to the gestapo power of control and despotism that has allowed the insidious crimes within the Catholic Church to go unpunished as they set themselves above the law. Ralph, you're a smart man, you're time would be better spent swatting flies.
blessings to all

James, get your facts straight. Catholic church burned at stake M. Jan Hus (a Czech follower of Wycliff and founder of Czech reformation) or Giordano Bruno, but Wycliff himself died peacefully in his bed. Just a nitpick.

by Stephenon March 25, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Thank-you for your lengthy response to my remark.I'll be the first to admit that I'm not at all qualified to discuss these subjects with you,and must refer you to Dr.Scott Hann or Tim Staples--you can utube them,or go to catholicanswers.com.Apologetics is not my cup of tea--I'm into the spiritual life,and do a lot of reading in the saints and spiritual masters of the Catholic Church--mainly dealing with ascetic theology.My personal favorites are St.Francis de Sales and Fr. Grou.I also read a lot of psychology and 12 step type things as I'm trying to prepare for a drug and alcohol councilor's career.So I really don't have the time to get into long doctrinal discussions,and frankly,I'm not interested in that sort of thing--don't want to get side tracked.But there are plenty of answers out there for you by godly men of good character who are much more qualified to discuss these things with you than I.
I do ask,though,that you look into what predominant passions are,and what are the manifestations of pride--I think you might find that there is still room in your life for some spiritual growth in the area of the Christian Virtues.May the peace of Christ be with you,Stephen

Matej, I stand corrected. Thank you. I meant Tyndale, who was choked, impaled and burned at the stake. In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy, so my point really was that Rome has a lot of skeletons in it's closets.

Thank you James. I know to you that I am preaching to the choir. But, you have demonstrated your understanding in clear writing. Blessings to you, and to all that would consider some of these points. This is not meant to be a direct attack on anyone; only to bring clear thinking and practice for the few that want that, and not just to be part of a club. For the past 36 years, once after the first year and twice for three day stints, I had to seriously step back and question Christianity. In each case, it was a matter of obtaining more knowledge. Some would say those were stumbling blocks. Yes, but in each case, I became much stronger as a believer. I choose to willfully put my faith on the line, because freedom boils down to this--in our doctrines and understanding of scripture--it's true or it's not true. In 1 Thes. 5, we are told this: 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil. It's pretty simple. And the Bereans were commended above all others in the 1st century churches. In Acts 17: 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Preach on brother. Having been raised Catholic and as I made mention earlier I have debated with Catholics ad nauseum so I'm slow to take my own advice. Often they tried to get me back into "the true Church" based on misunderstandings and ignorance of their very own doctrines, i.e., Vatican II which states that one need not be Catholic to be saved. I have wonderful neighbors and friends that are Catholic, and the distinctive that I suppose makes me still speak out, beyond the history of atrocities, the lunacies of certain dogmas as I have touched on, etc., but the most insidious is that these fine people are under the law. They have not found the freedom that Luther found relative to grace, and will often say they 'hope' they will be saved and that they are continuing in their 'good works' to that end. This is tyranny, lunacy, mendacity, misology, heresy, and apostasy. It's really quite sad, they are brothers and sisters in the Lord, they are good people, the Catholic church has been salt and light in this earth, but to my astonishment, those for whom Christ has set free, desire to enslave themselves again under a yoke of bondage. They seem to have never read the book of Galatians, or indeed, if they have, to have issues with comprehension. Quite amazing actually if you witness the force with which Paul is making his case, some of the strongest language in the Bible. "Who has bewitched you?" he says......to go back to the law? Wow! Oh, well, enough of my rantings. blessings

Hearing so many Protestants attack my Catholic faith has motivated me as an act of charity to remove their ignorance and to give a reasoned and logical response that is based on scripture. Just 3 points to show that Protestantism is mistaken:
1. The deepest and most important foundational "truth" of Protestantism :"Everything must be in the Bible" is i) UH-Scriptural, ii) UN-Historical until Luther invented this in 1519AD, iii) UN-Workable (Look at the more than 23,000 Christian denominations or abominations).
2. Scripture itself identifies that it is the Church (1 Tim 3:15) which is the pillar and foundation of truth, and Scripture identifies this Church of Jesus Christ as built on Peter (Mat 16:18) with Isa 22:22 giving us the significance of the papal office. No other Church in the world except the Catholic Church claims this pedigree or its claim to infallibility.
3. No protestant can have a complete Bible if not for the infallible Catholic Church. If the Church is not infallible, all protestants have is a bible that may or may not be complete. This is historical fact.

Amen brother--I really believe that pride is at the bottom of all these attacks.If you can find it,get a copy of the Particular Examen by the Rev. J.F.McElone,C.S.C. printed by Herder book co.1929.I's probably out of print (collecting out of print Catholic books on the Spiritual life is my hobby),but you might find one through abebooks.com,biblio.com,or amazon--at any rate,it explains very well what a predominant passion is and how to discover what your own is,and how to deal with it. I believe this is crucial in our recovery,and I also believe that these various manifestations of pride that we are seeing exibited here are part of addiction cycle.
You might also try rcspiritualdirection.com for guidance in this area--the peace of Christ be with you,Stephen

Stephen is wildly mistaken in his assertions. The foundation of the reformation is grace. Sola Scriptura to which he references puts authority in scripture where it belongs. Here's the bankruptcy of your argument. We have one huge agreement relative to the canon of Scripture. That is the 66 books contained in the Protestant Bible. I have no need to prove to you their veracity and rightful place in the canon, we agree they belong there. So, the Apocrypha, is what we disagree on. Based on very basic rules of engagement, since we agree on the legitimacy of the 66, the burden of proof is on you. All such arguments are to put it kindly, weak. I would recommend Norman Geisler's treatment of this in his Encycolpedia of Christian Apologetics. Of 260 quotes of the Old Testament in the New, NONE of the books Catholics added, the Apocrypha, are quoted by Jesus or the apostles. This is devastating to your argument because even the few other books also not quoted in the N.T. were unequivocally accepted by the Jews in their canon. Do your homework and you'll find you are on a banana peel on this issue.

Well,I want to thank these contentious "brothers" for showing me that this is not the place for me to seek recovery in--the last thing I need is a trigger of confusion like this this to stumble me back into the sins from which I'm trying to recover.
"Who is a wise man,and endued with knowledge among you?Let him show,by a good conversation,his work in the meekness of wisdom.But if you have bitter zeal,and there be contention in your hearts,glory not,and be not liars against the truth.For this is not wisdom,descending from above:but earthly,sensual,devilish.For where envying and contention is,there is inconstancy (confusion),and every evil work.But the wisdom that is from above is first chaste(pure),then peaceable,modest,willing to yield,consenting to the good,full of mercy and good fruits,without judging,without dissimulation (pretentiousness,or covert tactics,hypocrisy).Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by them who make peace."--James 3:13-18
What are you doing using this brother's blog as a billboard for your contentious argumentation--this is not the place for that--this is a blog of recovery from sex addiction,not an apologetics blog.You seem to be disgruntled Catholics with a mission to turn His "little ones" away from the faith--you're "wolves in sheep's clothing",and in very great danger of finding yourselves in God's judgement."Do not grumble against one another,brethren,lest you be condemned.Behold,the Judge is standing at the door!" James 5:9
As a note to the rest of you Catholics here,I've found a good Catholic recovery program called Courage,to which I will now be going,and am grateful that this contention goaded me into the sheep fold where we (as Catholics) apparently belong.Enough of these self-willed people who speak evil of dignitaries and things which they do not understand--see 11 Pe.2:1-22 The Lord be their Judge--they've been warned.
Lord,help me to forgive and love them anyway,for:"If someone says,'I love God',and hates his brother,he is a liar;for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen,how can he love God Whom he has not seen?And this is the commandment we have from Him:that he who loves God must love his brother also."--1 Jn.4:20,21
"Let your gentleness be known to all men.The Lord is at hand.Be anxious for nothing,but in everything by prayer and supplication,with thanksgiving,let your requests be known to God:and the peace of God that passes all understanding,will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."--Ph.4:4-7
The peace of Christ be with you all--goodbye--Stephen

Thank you, thank you and thank you Stephen. I too am checking into 'Courage'. While I am not Catholic YET, this contentious dialogue has confirmed why I no longer belong in the 'Evangelical' fold. I find mercy, grace and Truth in the Catholic community..like Jesus who continues to heal me one day at a time. Those who have not received mercy and grace rarely extend it...so this is my prayer for those who attack their brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. God bless you brother!

God bless you in your search for the Lord's place for you,my sister in Christ--just keep trusting in Him and keep doing His will,His way,and in His time--wait upon the Lord and He will renew your strength,spend time every day in His Word,in prayer,and in reading the Saints and Spiritual Masters of the holy Catholic and apostolic Church,utube Fr,Barron,Dr. Scott Hann,and Tim Staples,go to catholicanswers.com and to rcspiritualdirection.com. I'll leave you with a quote from a little book that has been helping me in my spiritual walk with Christ Jesus our Lord:"There is nothing sweeter in social life,and particularly in the Christian life,than union of hearts.The ancients represented it by a musical instrument.It produces upon earth a picture of heaven.What pleasure,what joy,to have the same sentiments,the same desires,and the same heart!This powerful union attracts the angels and puts the devils to flight.When David played upon his harp,the evil spirit that troubled Saul withdrew,and left him in peace.'How admirable!' says a holy father,'the devil who,as Job says,laughs at lances and arrows,trembles at hearing the chords of an instrument,and he who cannot be conquered by force is conquered by harmony!' He cannot bear that union of hearts,of which the chords of the harp were but a figure,and there is nothing which wages such cruel war as this beautiful love of peace! What are we doing,O my soul,if we ever cause dissension,and break this union of hearts? We afflict the angels,and procure the triumph of the devil; it being certain that as God reigns where there is peace,the devil reigns where there is dissension,and discord.Whom do we choose to be like?"--from The Meditations of St.Thomas on the purgative,illuminative,and unitive ways,by the Rev.Father Antoninus Massoulie,O.P.--the peace of Christ be with you,Stephen

Kudos to Courage, sounds like an awesome program and I applaud it wholeheartedly. However Stephen seems to have not noticed that this entire blog has emerged from the subject matter of Andy's conversion to Catholicism. That is the subject matter, so I don't see anyone hijacking it as a platform for their own views. Both views have had equal space to put forth their opinions. Some brothers however, when seeing that they are losing ground, give into whining and crying foul, judging another brothers motives as impure, preaching love and tolerance, when so much of the New Testament was devoted to refuting heresy. Such selectivity in your quotation of scripture simply shows either an incomplete knowledge of the books you quote or a unwillingness to subject yourself to them without bias. If you go back and read the entire thread you will see provocative statements made by both sides, and in fairness both sides have a lot at stake. We are, at the end of the day, brothers and sisters in the Lord, however people have given their lives for the very issues at stake here, and I would be remiss as a Protestant to ignore the spilled blood of my martyred ancestors in order to facilitate your feeling comfortable in you decision to join an organization that has sold salvation, withheld it under the pretense of the necessity of works to complete salvation, committed crimes against children in untold proportions, then heinously covered them up, putting themselves above the law, had popes that were as vile as any monsters that have ever walked the earth, then told people this is 'apostolic succession' and on and on. At the same time Protestants have their skeletons, many of them. The difference is that while power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the fragmentation of Protestantism has had the effect of diffusing their sins unlike the despotism of the Catholic oligarchy. You don't see pastors running for cover to their leaders after molesting children, what has been a common practice among Catholics, instead they are brought under the law like any citizen. This is happening now among Catholics NOT because of the decency or high moral standing of their leaders, but because of a massive public outcry! I celebrate what's good about Catholicism while at the same time see it's continued campaign to bring people for whom Christ died to set free, under the law and hence under bondage, as a crime of epic proportions. It must be spoken against, and the traditions which Christ spoke of against the Jews, caught up in their observances of ritual, tradition and the law, have for Catholicism become and anachronism that draws attention to a past that you would think they would want everyone to forget.

I agree heartily with Stephen and the point I feel he brought home so succinctly in such a humble spirit is that this is a blog to which people are turning to find help and freedom from sexual sin and addiction which they have not found in the traditional churches. It seems to me also, that in hijacking this format you who are "righteously" defending Protestantism as a better way than Catholicism are completely dishonoring to Andrew who has poured his life out to help be an advocate of God's healing to the sexually broken. This decision to become Catholic is his and God's to discuss, and I am so appreciative of Andrew's honesty in revealing this fact to all of us, which he really did not have to do; and I am quite sure where he attends church will not diminish in anyway, the depth of healing and ministry which will continue to flow through this Desert stream. I have felt so grieved in my spirit by the tone in which several of you have been speaking with unkind, scornful remarks (ie: "Kool-aide") to other brothers and sisters. As our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17 His wish was that we would all be one, as He and the Father are one.
I have been a Protestant for decades and have sat under some of the best teachers and pastors, but have recently begun to attend mass which has completely blown my Protestant mind by the amount of the Bible that is read, the sense of deep reverence for God and His Holy Word that is present, the sacrament of the Eucharist which touches me deeply every time; and in addition to this I have had my eyes opened to the glorious light of the Gospel in deeper and more profound ways recently than in all the years of flamboyant teachers, self righteous leaders and sheep who do not seem to be evidencing the fruit of His precious Holy Spirit. " I wish you all to be one, as the Father and I are one", and this blog has unfortunately become a runaway train of arrogance. So sad, I am sure our Father and Jesus are praying; I know I am.
Bless You all in your most intimate relationship with Him and may first love for Christ burn brightly in all of our lives.
Kathie Dee

Again - you seem to have not read what came before your contribution including the heading that Andy chose to put at the start. I'll do it for you. "Details Concerning My Conversion to Catholicism." This is an invitation to comment on the subject at hand. The title was not, let's talk about healing or sexual purity. Andy, God bless him, has chosen to make this issue a public forum and attempted to answer peoples concerns they may have about Catholic doctrine. That's all well and good. The problem from my perspective is he missed the most important issue, how we are saved. This is the starting point, that or who Jesus is, for identifying a cult. This is the line in the sand between Mormons, J.W.'s and all the rest. These two questions must be answered. We agree on who Jesus is, which is critical, but disagree on the sufficiency of the cross. This is also critical and cannot be swept aside. This is what drove Luther more than anything else, grace. I'm thrilled for you that you get things out of Catholicism that you didn't find elsewhere. This is not the subject that I'm addressing. You'd be surprised I'm sure to discover that one of my favorite teachers is Father Corapi on the Catholic channel. I just tune out when he get's into Catholic dogma that I disagree with. He's awesome. However that has no bearing whatsoever on the central issues that Protestants and Catholics disagree on, if we add anything to grace for our salvation, then we are putting ourselves under the law and Paul says we are deceived.This is an abomination to God, and an attack on the sufficiency of Christs atonement. If you like bells, incense, robes, liturgy, the comfort of joining a big family with a long history that's great, but the core issues that people have died to defend cannot be swept under the rug just because you think they are overshadowed by the things which you enjoy in your worship. They are there - these issues divided history, they will always be there - Andy invited the conversation and continued allusions to this conversation being 'hijacked' are incorrect and self -serving.

Just my last comment - I was not suggesting that Catholicism is a cult, only that who Jesus is, and how we are saved are starting points for discovering what religious systems are orthodox or not. And lastly, I think Andy is one of the most Godly, saints I know. As i said earlier I respect him and his decision, but based on the invitation afforded by him to comment, I cannot deny my perplexity nor dismiss an opportunity to speak what i consider to be a central truth of our faith, we are saved by grace through faith, not of works lest any of us should boast. Add anything to that - and Paul cries out, "who has bewitched you" to come under the law again? If you want to live 'hoping' that you are saved rather thank knowing you are saved, then enjoy such strange comfort, Christ died so that I may know I am saved, and no institution on earth has the right to question that based on sacraments they believe I must perform. Blessings to all . :~ )

OK--let's talk faith and works: "For by Grace are you saved through faith,and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God,not of works,lest any man should boast.For we are His workmanship,created in Christ Jesus for good works,which God prepared before hand that we should walk in them."--Ep.2:8-10. There are two places he mentions "works" here; the first is referring to being justified by the works of the law,and is referred to again in Ep.2:15 as "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." The second "works" are the works of the Christian life which are spoken of throughout this epistle,and indeed,trough the whole of the New Testament,e.g."remembering your work of faith,labor of love,patience of hope"-1 Thess.1:3. And here in this epistle:"I,therefore,the prisoner of the Lord,beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you are called,with all lowliness and gentleness,with longsuffering,bearing with one another in love,endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.For there is one body and one Spirit,just as you were called in one HOPE of your calling;one Lord,one faith,one baptism;one God and Father of all,Who is above all,through all,and in you all."-Ep.4:1-6 And picking up again in verse 13--"till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God,to a perfect man,to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;that we should no longer be children,tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,by the trickery of men,in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,but,speaking the truth in love,may grow up in all things into Him who is the Head-Christ-from Whom the whole body being joined and knit together by what every joint supplies,according to the effective WORKING by which every part does it's share,causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love."Ep.4:13-16 Do I need to quote the whole epistle so you won't cry "out of context" and "foul"? We're to "put off" the old man and "put on" the new (see verses 17-32),to be "imitators of God as dear children.And walk in love,as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us,an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling aroma."5:1,2 This goes on and on:"work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;for it is od Who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure"-Ph.2:12,13
And concerning your presumption on the certainty of your salvation as if you've been given some sort of ticket to heaven,you better check out "IF INDEED YOU CONTINUE IN THE FAITH,grounded and steadfast,and are not moved away from the HOPE of the Gospel---" Co.1:23 And "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine.Continue in them,FOR IN DOING THIS YOU WILL SAVE BOTH YOURSELF AND THOSE WHO HERE YOU." 1 Ti.4:16
"You see then that a man is justified by works,and not by faith only"--see Ja.2:14-26--and the whole book for that matter--no wonder Luther wanted to throw it out of the cannon--along with 6 other of the books in the New Testament because they didn't agree with his heretical doctrine when they claimed that we would be judged by our works--and even Jesus in Mt.25:31-46 and indeed,throughout the Gospels taught us that we are judged by our works.
This business of faith alone without works is totally unscriptural,and was never heard of by the Church for the first 1500 years of Christianity.Read the whole Bible,not just your proof texts--look up "perseverance" in a Naves Topical Bible,and take this to the Lord in prayer.
But then--that's really not the issue here is it? It's really your covert-agressive personality seeking to manipulate people away from their faith with your slick tactics--I would invite everyone here to read "In Sheep's Clothing" by George Simon,Jr.,Ph.D taht can be ordered through his website:www.manipulative-people.com--it exposes people like you all too well.
You are an apostate Catholic and your soul is in GREAT DANGER of being lost--you know good and well that this type of argumentation was not intended by Andrew when he announced that he had become a Catholic--you're only using that as an excuse to take advantage of the situation--the Lord rebuke you for your prideful contention and your manipulative tactics--you ought to be ashamed for using this "inter-denominational" ministry to pound people over the head with your private interpretation of scripture and selective methods of hearing the Gospel preached by real men of God.Also your inacurate and selective representation (or should I say misrepresentation) of Church history--frankly,you sound like the devil accusing the Church of every thing that you can think of.But then,it's really not about real historical facts,is it? No,it's about some disappointment or hurt that you have personally experienced in the Church,and so you are reaching for anything that will do. Like an atheist does when he decides he's not going to believe in God anymore.But then,that's another problem,isn't it?You have no shame,or at least,any conscience anymore--it's been seared with a hot iron.God have mercy on your soul.

Seriously ... now that some have felt the need to re-enact The Reformation in this comment thread ... are we really going to move into "once saved always saved" vs. "saved by faith-sanctification by works" arguments? I thought this post was about Andy sharing his testimony of converting to Catholicism...not a an opportunity for people to jump on their own soap boxes to re hash centuries old arguments in some sort of contest to theologically one-up each other. I am all for quality civil debate but ... a couple of you have written enough highly charged, and I would say mean spirited in a few instances, arguments (not civil debate) to fill up a book(s).
I vote for getting back to the subject of Andy and his journey. And please stick to first person beliefs and opinions and resist the temptation to personally accuse others of motives and issues that frankly you can't fully assess in a comment thread.
That's just my opinion of course :)

Thank you Randy. This comment thread alone rivals the debates surrounding "Jesus vs. Religion" by Jefferson Bethke - and to no less resolution! God bless Jefferson and Andy on both of their journeys and for the way they point others to Christ along the way. If others of us are distracted by our own personal quests, then that is our issue. We cannot correct or resolve their issues via a blog war. Some lively discussion here, worth reading - TO A POINT! The ad nauseum begins to get a little telling. Me thing the Protestant doth protest too much! Ha! A protestant joke. You don't get many of those do you - except for the 30,000 of us. Ha! Another one. God bless all! I hereby unsubscribe...

Stephen, wow, dude, take some deep breaths take a step back and re-read your own entries.
"What are you doing using this brother’s blog as a billboard for your contentious argumentation–this is not the place for that–.....”Do not grumble against one another,brethren,lest you be condemned.Behold,the Judge is standing at the door!” James 5:9I
You're 'grumbling' Stephen, to put it mildly...... and you are using this as your billboard just as anyone else has. " you know good and well that this type of argumentation was not intended by Andrew". So.........that's why you're arguing this way? In the world you live in, it's o.k. to use "this brother's blog as a billboard", as long as everyone is agreeing with you. BTW - go read Vatican II and you'll find out I'm in no danger at tall regarding salvation, just a fantasy that you are nurturing in your contempt for anyone that opposes your dogmas. You're a good Catholic. That's part of your history, your forefathers burned at the stake anyone that did not agree with them. I'm not disgruntled, I'm an enlightened ex-Catholic. I was raised Catholic and never once heard a message that would lead me to Jesus until I had left the church. I'm with Randy, thanks for the sensible intervention and blessings to all.

Look--I tried to bow out of this gracefully,then you called me a "sniveler" and basically,a coward,and if that wasn't enough,you insulted my wife after her comment as well---you know that you started out and continued to be the aggressor here,now your pretending to be the innocent victim. I'm just glad I found out how you people are before I moved there and started going to your meetings--I'll never attend any sort of Evangelical function again as long as I live thanks to you--I had fond memories of my fundamentalist Bible colleges,and non-denominational evangelical Churches until now--but you have successfully put a VERY bitter taste in my mouth for anything remotely affiliated with evangelical Christianity--now,I'm going to put this blog in my junk mail,and this will be my last entry,so don't bother waisting your time with a reply. GOODBYE--Stephen

I would like to support James Golding words. Let's try to look what we can bless in each other! Andy loves Jesus, that is clear. I admire and bless you Andy, for your gentle expressed patience and endurence which you show.

Andy,.
My best friend is Roman and I applaud your move. We became friends with Fr. Duane Pederson who was the editor of the Hollywood Free Paper during the Jesus Movement and has since become an Eastern Orthodox Priest and others also did (some officials of Campus Crusade for Christ, I believe) and I've been going to a Greek Orthodox Bible Study for two years. It has been so many years since I last saw you but you are in my prayers. I had lunch with Fr. Pederson this week and don't know whether I'll become Orthodox or maybe Catholic like my best friend. My Catholic friend is very active in Courage, the Catholic group here in Southern California. I went with him to one or two Courage meetings several years ago and I have great respect for what Courage stands for. Anyway, God Bless You in the way God is helping you work out your Salvation and I value the friendship I had with you at the beginning of Desert Stream. I would love to hear from you. Frank

Who's without sin,cast the first stone.This is how I'll start.
Protestants are always accusing Catholics of murdering people because those people wanted to enlighten us about the word of God.Sure it happened,but were they all burnt for that purpose?Many rather were ones who just helped to sow confusion in religion.
I don't support those catholic popes and clergy who supported those murders,but I think they were also concerned about salvation and how people were aggressively following it without thinking about faith and works.
Now the last succession of popes have all condemned these and ask people to forgive,so why do you evangelicals and protestants do refer on that?
Please allow others who see their catholicism as the true church to worship their GOD,SAVIOUR AND HOLY SPIRIT,together with their MARY and saints.
If u evangelicals,protestants and pentecostals are better and perfect,just live in it.The catholic church is always changing and expanding.
All I can see is that you these protestants just don't want to see the light that others have seen in the catholic church,and just hop from place to place where catholics are,to put dust in their eyes with those comments.It'll not work.
Many are knowing the truth and coming back.And that's a fact.You're just getting stressed with your attacks.The more you attack,the more people know the truth.
I'll always pray to GOD to open your eyes to the truth.
Your attack against the catholic church worked in the 70s,but now it won't work.
GOD BLESS YOU.
Chris

For all of us, it all boils down to this: The ideas we embrace here and now will determine our freedom to draw nearer or further from Christ. In the end, one on one, all of us will be without excuse when asked, "what did you do with my son?" Each person is required to source down each idea presented, abstain from evil, and cling to that which is good. And by good, not holding to what comes naturally. Except Jesus, God dwelling for 33 years on earth in human flesh, since the time of Adam, we all are born into sin; not one of us are or have been exempt from that state of brokenness. We all start out as our own gods of our own universe and unless God himself reveals his position and we accept his Godhead position, we are doomed to a life of finite misunderstanding.
One of the ideas God expressed, dating all the way back to Adam, is the need for blood sacrifice to cover sin. The way man was justified in each period has changed over time, but the person through which justification has come has not. When Jesus breathed his last on the cross and stated "it is finished," God, the father tore the 15' tall, 6" thick finely woven cloth that could not be pulled apart by two oxen in two from top to bottom. At that moment, many from the grave stood up and walked out of the holds of death. Jesus' blood at that moment satisfied the condition of death; all believers from the time of Abraham who was justified merely by his belief in God, many other OT saints, and all those who gave their hearts and obedience to God through the time of the law until Jesus came were justified, as were all NT saints to come until the end of time.
If it were a credit card, all the OT saints got a very large credit line. Jesus came in human flesh and with a one time payment paid all the past debt with his blood. Furthermore, he also made an advance payment for all future debt until the end of the earth as we know it. Prior to Jesus, all sin was reconciled once per year by the High Priest offering a pure goat blood sacrifice. This was a temporary shadow covering, in that this sacrifice would not cover the next minute past the sacrifice when new sin was committed. The moment God tore the curtain there was no longer any barrier. Man had immediate access to God to lay down his sin. And Jesus being the eternal high priest paid it all in advance as stated earlier. Therefore, all past, present, and future sin is accounted for. There is no need for any other sacrifice. The book of Hebrews makes this especially plain. Direct access granted forever. Going back to the priestly system (one who must account for the sins of others) is a step back into law which merely points out that we cannot ever do enough to escape its hold. In light of this, one must look at communion and ask: Is this a ritual of receiving acceptance, restored righteousness? Or, is this a celebration of what God has done once, forever accounted for, on our behalf? Logically, there is no middle ground.
Are we stepping forward into the full effect of the New Covenant as presented by Jesus himself, where Jesus no longer calls us servants, but friends? Or are we reverting back to components that the law required to justify and sanctify us before Jesus' final and ultimate, one-time sacrifice ; going back to a type or shadow of what was to come?

Andy's conversion to Catholocism is just another example of the need for further validation of his antigay stance. When faced with the overwhelming tide of reality that gay is OK, Andy retreats to the rigid walls of th Chirch (with a capital C) to shore up his eroding validation. Good luck Andy, but you'd be better off facing reality.

Marianne, the only validation Andrew or any faithful Christian needs is Jesus and his Word. What do YOU know of reality? Jesus claimed to be the Truth, the Way, and the Life. Let's see how you make it on the other side.

in the end time, Andrew or any faithful Christian needs is Jesus and his Word, what we need most which is daily connecting to Jesus and have intimate relationship with God, wait upon Lord.
I went to IHOP-KC 's prayer room and also visit desert stream in kc ,
in the end time, what really matters - abiding in Christ daily ( john 15:)
do not let man-made religion and man-made teaching defile us, we need to pray for discernment from God.
we need have spirit of discernment , no matter where we are

The diversity and flexibility of your ministry continues to amaze me. Christ had boundaries...the boundaries of love...those boundaries energized Him to give His all for those who would believe and by their freedom of will...come to God. You are a great example to me that challenges me to not limit God and what He accomplished through the work of His Dear Son.
I think we are often stopped by labels when the spirit of Christ in Us, the Hope of Glory, would have us continue. I am thankful for your love of TRUTH AND THAT WHICH HEALS US, and am encouraged in your ministry. Thank you for loving us enough to explain things to us so we can grow and better serve our LORD!

I'm very surprised by your conversion to Roman Catholicism. I'm part of the 25-week Living Waters program right now here in the Philippines. Thank you for your ministry and I pray that God would continue to speak to you and draw you towards Himself.

Hi Andy; We have never met but I have seen you at the various PCM's of past years and have always appreciated your courage to stand for the truth that sets people free, and for the ability to bow your knees before Jesus , especially on the Cross. The depth of what I could say here in response to your decision to do the RCIA would give me too many limitations to say what I feel is quite similiar to my own experience of becoming a Roman Catholic Believer. I believe you understand the need for all three of the means towards grace : The Evangelical Word ?The Sacramental setting and / The Charismatic Gifts. So may I correct your definition of being a Christian by stating that 1st of all you are of the Order of Melchiszek and if pressed further to define yourself,... you are an Evangelical, Sacramental , Charismatic Christian ! I know that you understand that fully. I needed the sacraments in my life to further enable me in the vital role of true repentance with confession.and I have glorious tmestimonies about my experiences. Next, after being ministered to by Mario Bergner back in the 1980's, I came home to then, my GR, Mich Church home, and after 2 weeks following a major inner-healing, The Lord revealed Himself to me with such an intensive light that it both scared me and encouraged me , all at the same time, and this He did in a non-sacramental church. I could say more here ,but I am trying to bare witness to my recovery story which is God's rescue of me and me myself.. Please pray for me in the writing of my 1st book entitled "Of Things Great And Small" ! I am friends of Jean Musberger and have met Dean Greer through her friendship some monts ago here in Milwaukee. Shalom of Yeshua, Jerry Braden

Andy: I'm leaving this post, in a sort of 'day-late, dollar-short' blog-like fashion, since the original post started in 2012, and I only came to see this through a friends Share page on Facebook on your article named: "Cultivating Gay Christians". I wanted to reflect on your decision to join the Roman Catholic Church. I disagree with the RCC (if I may use this abbreviation) on many points: 1) how we are Saved and continue that Salvation through Christ, i.e. how we are Called by GOD to realize our state of being Lost because of sin (through a preacher/teacher/evangelist/witness or through our God-given conscience), repent and turn from those sins and sinful WAYS, believe on Christ to Save us and that His Father raised Him from the dead and that He will do likewise for us so we won't taste the 2nd death, which is eternal Hell; continue in repentance and faith all of our days so we do not lose our Salvation. After our initial Salvation, we follow with baptism, which is not necessary for Salvation, but in two ways continues the Christian's journey: water baptism is a public affirmation of our resolve to be declared a part of GOD's/Christ's Kingdom, and Spiritual Baptism is a resignation of self in order to allow GOD's Spirit to change and be used, which begins at the point of becoming Reborn/Born-Again. So much of a Christian's life is closet-like, one-on-one time spent with GOD/Jesus and study His WORD. The reflection of that time becomes useable by GOD when we assemble to not only pray, worship, sing, hear GOD's Word, be taught, reflect...BUT, a time to become aware of each church members needs PLUS the needs of friends or the community of the Lost, and receive tasks to help one another. This is in contrast to the RCC, who come for the eucharist to absolve them of sins, see images of Christ and Mary and others, while their Bible conveniently deleted the 2nd Commandment and split the 10th into 2 so the TEN would still count arithmetically. On Sunday March 10th, 2012, I attended church with my son, during a visit at his RC church. The subject was about not having idols, which seemed weird knowing what I knew about the catholic Bible's ten Commandments and the statue stuff. At the end of the service, I observed a man walk up to this life-size version of Mary (which was on the side of the sanctuary), fall down before her, grab her arms and start weeping and praying to her. All I could think of was WOW ! Anyone RC who says they don't pray to Mary, I believe, is incorrect. When my son was going through the RC cathecism, I asked him if there was anything he felt that was wrong about the RC faith he said no. I asked him if RC's weren't praying to Mary, who is dead, and we are instructed not to try to talk to the dead. At a later date he called me with an update and said that they don't pray to Mary, they just talk to her. Talk/pray pray/talk where is the fine line of destinction?: when lawyers say to the judge "I pray your honor will hear our side of this case, they are just saying the words, which differ from praying for mercy at the hands of someone who is about to take your life, which leaders in the RC church have done in the past. Just look at the words of the Rosary, which didn't exist 1000 years ago...'Holy Mary, mother of GOD, pray for us sinners...' my son said, that "Mary is just going to have a good talkin' to, to her son", instead of, Mary needed a Savior the same as others who saw favor in GOD's sight: like Noah, Abraham, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, David. 2) Baptism, as already discussed as I define its need versus the RCC who believes it brings about Salvation, and usually to an infant who has never nor is able to confess Christ. 3) indulgences; the RCC says they no longer exist, but oh, they do; when my wife's mother died, Novenas were said at special masses, at after several months my father-in-law announced that he 'felt' his wife pass on to finally be with Jesus. I, in contrast, believe that if a person is Saved by Christ's Salvation, he/she goes to be with the Lord the very day they pass away into 'sleep'...like he said to the theif on the cross "I tell you this day, you shall be with me in Paradise, which is where I believe we would go too. 4) absolution of sins: a priest has no special power to forgive sins, except the sins against himself. Sins are before GOD and the person we may have sinned against. Our requirements are to seek forgiveness from GOD directly through prayer; then, if another has been sinned against, to ask forgiveness from them. 5) The purpose of The Last Supper: to take EITHER, the physical elements, or their spiritual representations of them into EITHER our body physically or our mind spiritually. To dwell, in our minds, on why Jesus Christ went to a cross (sin, and ours in particular), that horribleness of His suffering in the beating and the cross', the almost complete sanguination (bleeding to death), the shame of nakedness, the debased nature of those of us who make His sacrifice cheap by casting lots for some physical trinket to remember Him by (or claim we are His), that He gave up His life willingly and that no one took it from him, that we have been like Judas and betrayed Him, or like Peter and denied him...that His body saw no decay, for His Father raised Him from the dead, and that even though we deserve death, eternal death, GOD gives us the chance to become a part of His family, eternally, and to one day be called even a son of GOD! That, that, is the remembrance that Christ wants us to begin with; but there is much more; He wants us to love Him, by doing what he commanded, humbling ourselves and become servants to GOD and to others. This is in contrast to the RCC, which believes they are eating the actual physical body of Christ and drinking His blood, yet I challenge you to succome to a test after taking the eucharist; have your stomach pumped and the contents analyzed. I guarantee you it will be the same ingredients used to make the wafer, and wine, not flesh or blood. Also, the eating of flesh is an abomination to GOD, and so is drinking blood. In the OT times, priests would take something like a bread and wine promise-ceremony; it was like making a very solemn promise which was held by continuation of the covenant, a way of showing such a level of agreement that it was on par with "I hereby determine to stand behind you in this covenant agreement, even to death, yes, even if it costs me my very life". So, when the disciples saw Jesus asking them to take such An Agreement, he was really asking them to promise to follow Him all the rest of their lives, even if it cost them their own (which it really did, didn't it?). The last area deals with sexual issues, the lust of the flesh which is at the core of all sin. The RCC says you may be born with some other 'orientation' (this differs from the man-woman family concept written throughout the Scriptures. The Anglican church has struggled with the issue of homosexuality, but has now appointed bishops who are openly homosexual; compare that to the requirements of a bishop: the husband of one wife, or married in the traditional sense, complete with having had children who are now all grown, and we can look at how they turned out to see that they turned out to be GODly people too, so let's look into this further. The RCC denies: marriage for priests, no women priests, which actually should be called elders, since we are all priests. And saints, and sainthood, that title also goes to all of the redeemed, the one true church of GOD, His Bride. Over 33,000 times the Christian churches (by denomination and by personal testimonies that say "well, in MY book, I believe dah dah dah") have written what the criteria is to be a follower of GOD and Christ. Even the RCC has a billion people with a billion differing answers to basic areas of what constitutes a Christian or proper behavior and thinking; some support abortion, others not, some want women priests, some not, some want The Pill others not. But when I hear them say when asked if they are going to Heaven (Paradise) when they die, and they say something like : "well, I don't know, I hope I've done enough good to cancel out the bad", I realize the true Christian is somewhere between the OnceSavedAlwaysSaved Calvinists and that RCC belief: that deciding EACH day Whom you shall follow and serve will bring the proper response I AM SAVED ! I have considered joining the RCC in order to bring these points out and cause a change of thinking. You have worked diligently in trying to cause a change of thinking in the sexual areas, and have done a great service to many people. Does doctrine matter? Does adding or changing the WORD of GOD matter?, or the requirements of what is a Christian from what Christ or the Biblical apostles commanded? or, stating that the traditions of men carry just as much weight as the WORD of GOD make that much difference? If you are a simple-minded person, who grew up in the RCC or any other denomination and who knows no better, it does not; but the teachers, the evangelists, the elders of the church MUST know better and will be held accountable for any who fall away because of their words or actions. Daniel

Wow Daniel, you sure did pour out your heart here on this post. I pray you keep yourself pressed into the Lord , seeking His will for your life and entrusting Andy's life into God's care.....just as Jesus said to his other disciple when inquiring of another,..."What is that to you? Follow thou me" ! There are many areas that showed up in your focus, which cannot be discerned easily right here and now. God loves all people and His love reaches into many RC's who you may not understand their beliefs, but you must trust that God is at work in them as well...even right now. RC churches are just like evangelical churches; some are deeply Christ centered and alive, and others have become formal and dull, lacking God's Spirit ! Keep inquiring to the Lord and ask Him to speak to your hurting soul on these issues that bother.you. Please don't be too surprised when the healing answer comes, sometimes by a surprise and sometimes with new direction for your own life. This He did and is doing in my quest to follow Him in the course set forth for my life. Have Faith in God that Andy is obeying God in this decision that cost him a lot of friends who chose not to understand what is truly happening in his life ! Daniel is it possible to be an "Evangelical, Sacramental, Charismatic Christian ? I believe god is stretching you in these matters. Are you willing ? Shalom of Yeshua, Jerry B.

Dear Andy,
Desert Stream Ministry has and will always be precious to me, your courage to stand for the Truth leading people to comprehend the length, breadth and depth of Christ’s love in the midst of brokenness and shame is something I won’t forget.
On hearing of your conversion, it shocked me and left me confused. I wrestled with it until I took it to the Lord and His peace surpassed my understanding of your decision. I am confident God has allowed this for a purpose and you will continue to be an instrument of His grace and love to the hurting Catholics.
Whenever I remember you, I pray for your protection from any deception.
God bless you richly
Maria Rozario
Bahrain

God is not calling people to be Catholic or Protestant, but rather, followers of Jesus. God has some tremendous servants in the Catholic church such as Father Cedric Pisegna and others. I am a former Catholic and was interceding for the church today. I was praying that God will purify the Catholic Church, removing excessive devotion to Mary and saints, and bring a stronger belief in the scriptures. Charlene Ramirez prophesied in her book, "God is Speaking Now," that before the coming of Antichrist, the power of Rome will increase. God may call people out of worldly churches around that time, "come out of her My people." It is culturally attractive

Andy, you are an honest faithful man. I love your transparency and openness to be examined by anyone and everyone, and having read many of the past comments from 2012 on, it is apparent that there are those who will never understand your decisions to follow the Lord, which for you means to become RC. I fully expect that in time, that decision will showcase the goodness of God in your life, and that He has sent you down this lonely road to see whether you will give up your life, just as Abraham was tested to see whether he would utterly follow the Lord. Many blessings await you. We are excited for you. Keep on in obedience "To not be thoughtless, but understanding." Your blogs are effectual and full of mercy ! Today is yours' to own , to have, to live. !

Dear Brother Andy, i with my sister pray for you and your wife very often , we pray that God will protect and guide you, not to be defiled by man-made religion, wherever you and your wife are .if that is God 's will to place you in the catholic church, God Bless you !
pls also check the material in the website of World for Jesus ministry regarding to something to aware if you have time. http://www.worldforjesus.org/articles-special.php?ID=340
sister in Christ

So Mr Comiskey has no problem now worshipping and praying Mary, worshipping idols which, according to the Bible, is equivalent to worshipping demons (I Corinthians 10:20; I Timothy 4:1)? Is it a progress, a step forward in faith or instead o big step backwards? Did the Catholic Church began to preach the truth when you became part of it? How many truths are there?

This response needs a reply. Catholics do not worship Mary, only God is worshipped. The Blessed Virgin Mary is 'venerated' that is, given honor as the mother of our Lord. -The New Testament speaks of "a great cloud of witnesses" which are the Saints in heaven. We can ask those saints to pray for us - in the same way that you would ask one of your friends on earth to pray for us.
The Corinthians and Timothy passages you mention concern pagan religions and praying to demons. I think we would all agree that the Blessed Virgin Mother is not a demon.

God Bless you, my very faithful friend. We met at UCLA years ago, worked at Logos together, and from the time you stepped in front of the entire AGO fraternity and confessed your struggles I have admired and respected you. Your dedication and commitment to abiding in Jesus Christ has always been an inspiration to a flawed, broken sinner like me. I love you. Please give my best to Annette!!! Give ALL the Glory to God and let the rest GO!!! Amen!!!!
Love,
Mark

Michael. Right on. "churchianity"? I thought I had made up that word. I was actually racking my brain to remember if I had seen this page before and had left a comment and forgot about it. Your views almost identical to my own. However, I wonder if the Holy Spirit is directing Andrew in a way that not even he can comprehend. There is still a lot of work God is doing even within the purple and scarlet decked out masses of professing RC's whom Jesus commanded his people to come out of in the final book of Scripture. The late missionary Pastor Richard Wurmbrand(founder of Voice of the Martyrs), when he was locked away by Communists for over a decade wrote about being imprisoned in a dungeon along with Catholic priests. These priests suffered along with Wurmbrand because of the gospel. They endured cruel beatings and torture that is hard to even think about or mention. These Catholic Priests were also witnesses of miracles that occurred in the darkest hours of their imprisonment and torture like wonderful arrays of colorful light that broke out from the center of the dark dungeon they were in and danced around the walls of the room. And the presence of Christ being sensed by them all. We have to remember that to many Roman Catholics, their church is whatever it means to them and not what we see it to be. And to them that meaning is pure and their conscience is undefiled. And there is much great literary and devotional work that is about Christ that comes out of their church as well.

This is so strange! Many years ago (20?, 30?) I was interested in the Desert Streams Ministry, if for no other reason than that it represented another view of homosexuality, but more importantly, of sexuality and our Christian walk. I thought at the time that it was a deeply Catholic view. I also became a Catholic when I was 20, after being raised in charismatic and evangelical churches. It was a slow, studied, and wonderful decision to become a Catholic, and to this day, I've never regretted a moment. I go to daily Mass, and this is just my 'home'. However, if they gave me the 'Catholic test' (whatever that is!), they would probably throw me out... I am not a typical religious Catholic.
I just thought I would peek in and see if Desert Streams still existed, and how Andy Comiskey was doing. What do you know. You've become a Catholic. And your blogs are every bit as crushing, and saving, as they ever were. So... I just thought I would say thank you! Thank you for your hard work, and long journey. I printed out Burn. Again. to send to my friend in prison, who is a tremendous Christian and inspiration. I'm wondering if there is any way to just have your blogs or newsletters sent directly to a prison. (?)